"There are a number of lines of legal forensic evidence that could be presented.
One would be that life is too complex to have come into existence by time, chance and random processes."
Define "complex" and show why natural processes could not possibly account for such a state. If you can't do this then you're arguing from personal incredulity which, as we all know, is fallacious.
"There is no way you could add information to the genetic machinery for increased complexity unless there was an intelligence designing and directing the adding of information."
Define "information" and show why natural processes could not possibly account for the addition of such to DNA. If you can't do this then you're arguing from personal incredulity which, as we all know, is fallacious.
"That leads to, well who is that intelligence then?"
Good question. Note that if you say "God" then you've left science far behind and are now dealing with theology or, possibly, philosophy at best. That is unless you have some sort of evidence for god.
"From there you can point out that the Bible claims to be a message from that intelligence. Ok, then how do I know that the Bible is really from the creator? There are a number of lines of evidence one can consider."
Please don't say "the Bible's true because it says it is!" That would just be stupid.
"Bible prophecy and its accurate fulfillment is strong evidence that the Bible is from that Creator. There are hundreds of prophecies already accurately fulfilled and many more ready to be fulfilled in the end times."
There are no "prophecies" that I'm aware of, in the Bible or elsewhere, that can be shown to be anything other than hindsight written after the events, blind luck or the writings of someone smart enough to see what was coming based on what was happening around them. There's also the writings that are just vague enough that you can read anything you like into them. Those tend to make the best "prophecies" in my opinion. I wouldn't call them the genuine article though.
"The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has strong legal evidence that it truly happened."
Legal evidence is irrelevant outside of a courtroom. Hell, sometimes it's irrelevant inside a courtroom. Please provide valid and testable scientific evidence and stop trying to weasel out of doing so by giving "legal" evidence.
"he gospels are 4 eyewitness accounts of these events admissable in any court of law."
Unfortunately, lawyers do not dictate what constitutes reality. Just because it would pass muster in court doesn't mean it's an actual fact.
"There were over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ available also."
Name them. Who were they? Where did they live? Where are their writings? Why did nobody else but these 500 anonymous people and the four writers of the Gospels notice such an event? If they did, where are their writings?
A group of anonymous people who have even less evidence for their existence than your Christ does are not exactly persuasive evidence for your cause.
"Secular historians recorded the fact of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ."
Where? I'm aware of nobody outside of the Christian movement having written any such thing. Various Romans wrote about Christians, but none about Christ. Nobody seems to have noticed the guy at all outside of a handful of followers who wrote the various books that were later compiled into the New Testament. You'd think somebody would have noticed the guy but no, that's not the case.
"he dead sea scrolls attest to the accuracy of the manuscipts we now have. The writings of the early church fathers preserve virtually every verse in the Bible which affirms our current Bible. "
Not to be too blunt but, so what?
"There is a start."
I hope you can do better now that you've got some momentum.