This statement and the whole previous post are nothing but an indirect assault on every non-Christian. No wonder nobody misses you when you are not around. You are so arrogant as to believe you have it all figured out, when you simply spout ignorant statement after ignorant statement in an attempt to feel superior. You have absolutely no proof or evidence of your belief, and I do not hold that against you. But when you attack a scientific theory which has evidence (not proof) on scientific levels and demand that your theory is superior on scientific ground, it is mind boggling.
I support evolution to justify my atheism? How do you come up with this? Honestly, I think the idea of evolution is fascinating, but it really doesn't matter much to me. You make the assumption it does. That's like saying plate tectonics is my religion. It is foolish to even think that. It is science, and for those who find such things interesting, it is only science. It is not my livelihood. It doesn't affect my life (except when I spend hours a day reading this 4,000 post thread). I don't pray to Darwin. It doesn't even begin to make sense what you are implying.
To you, this debate fulfills your existence and makes you a good Christian. To me it's a hobby. I don't need it. I'm not defending my entire belief structure as you are. A new theory could come along and I'd be a reformed man if it made more sense. This is the difference between me and you. No matter what evidence or proof comes along, nothing will change your mind. Your mind is closed.
This statement and the whole previous post are nothing but an indirect assault on every non-Christian.
You are trying to turn something which is a discussion of facts into a personal thing. Clearly this is because you cannot discuss the facts. The fact is that you cannot give scientific proof for any of these. The fact is that others holding on to these theories cannot give such proof either. There is more scientific proof against all these materialistic/atheistic theories than there is for them. Nevertheless those who hold to them claim their views are due to their love of science and their following scientific truth not a personal predilection. Now it seems to me that if people holding to these views cannot justify them from a scientific viewpoint but must instead rely on some vague possibility for which there is no scientific evidence, then such people are clearly following some personal predilection not science.
Now the way you can refute the above is by showing that the scientific evidence for your materialistic/atheistic view is greater than for the opposite, not by insults. Let's see if you can meet the challenge.