[Gargantua]

"What evidence would prove that God did not create the universe and that God does not exist?"

Exactly! You're learning.

The newcoming challengers (Evolutionary scientists) bear the responsibility for proving their novel sputum. It isn't as though the evolutionary scientists were here first, and then these religious interlopers came along trying to inject their radical ideas about Creation into the world. Creation happened before there were any people at all, and thousands of texts from Antiquity state this quite clearly.

And as to the fact of the existence of these ancient documents, your phony assertion that it is somehow my reference to them upon which their existence (or accuracy) relies is as absurd and pointless as are the rest of your gainsaying arguments... indeed, as pointless as is man's insistence upon believing in his own artificial and temporal "intelligence." It does not exist.

In the end, you are only fighting against yourself, and the well-being of your own eternal soul. If you are certain that that is a fight worth fighting, I cannot stop you.

But I do mourn your unwise choice, and pray for God's wisdom in your heart.

[Dimensio]

"What evidence would prove that God did not create the universe and that God does not exist?"

Exactly! You're learning.

Are you saying that it cannot be disproven? If so then it's not a scientific claim; science can only deal with claims that are falsifiable. It isn't a problem of science that your God construct doesn't meet its criteria.
Note that this doesn't mean that your God doesn't exist -- it just means that your claims regarding God fall outside the realm of science.

The newcoming challengers (Evolutionary scientists) bear the responsibility for proving their novel sputum. It isn't as though the evolutionary scientists were here first, and then these religious interlopers came along trying to inject their radical ideas about Creation into the world. Creation happened before there were any people at all, and thousands of texts from Antiquity state this quite clearly.

The evolutionary scientists do attempt to support their theories with evidence, predictions, tests and observations. If you want to argue against what has been produced then do so.

And as to the fact of the existence of these ancient documents, your phony assertion that it is somehow my reference to them upon which their existence (or accuracy) relies is as absurd and pointless as are the rest of your gainsaying arguments... indeed, as pointless as is man's insistence upon believing in his own artificial and temporal "intelligence." It does not exist.

You asserted that the texts are accurate, and I can quote you on that -- don't deny it. The claim regarding the accuracy of the texts is yours, the burden of proof is on you (or anyone else making the same claim) that the texts are accurate. You can do this by demonstrating the accuracy of the claims within the text, in which case you would be vindicating both your position and the book's but to assert that you don't need to support anything because you didn't write the book is passing the buck: you assert the truth of the book, so show that your claims are accurate.

[Quila]

It isn't as though the evolutionary scientists were here first, and then these religious interlopers came along trying to inject their radical ideas about Creation into the world.

You're mixing religion and science. There was no scientific theory for origins, only ancient creation myths (in your case, started by polytheistic nomadic desert tribes, later edited to reconcile the more recent monotheistic version with the original polytheistic one).