I thought that too @boberto, but I chose to stay quiet in this sensitive topic.

So did I. Dammit

Ba doot doot doot doot doot

Now I'm a believer!

It is not sad. It's epic! Just a different way of thinking.

And if you did it would just be called sports.

Sure atheists can be genuinely nice people just because they wanted to, but they have no reason to be. It may help their social status and comfort, but so what? It may help them have a family, but so what? It may prolong the survival of humanity, but so what? If there is no afterlife, and you are not accountable to anyone beyond simple humans, why should you be good and not be bad? You could be as mean as you want, and it wouldn't make a dent in the universe. There is no consequence for your actions.
But there is a God, who will judge you justly. You are accountable to Him, so if He says you must be good, you should be good. Or you will face consequences. He has given us free will to make our own choices, but some people have gone their own way and invented religions and atheism in an attempt to justify their actions, which by God's laws are wrong. They try to hide from the consequences, and in doing so they fool themselves into believing there is no God.

Okay. Gravity is observational science. You can test it right here, right now, in your backyard. Evolution is historical science. You cannot test it at all. Historical science can only be done using facts we can observe today, like fossils, human records (writing), and other stuff. This leaves a level of uncertainty, because we cannot know for sure what happened in the past unless we were there to observe it. Evolution and Creation are both world views people use to explain how the facts got there, and neither one is observational science. If evolution is fact, do a test in the lab and repeat it!
Sure, micro-evolution is observational science and can be tested in our lifetime, but macro-evolution cannot be tested, so it is historical science, same as Creation.
A good portion of the world's leading scientists Are Creationists!

Well that's what you get with scientific debates. And I respect all your beliefs and thoughts guys. We can leave it at that :)

Yes, atheism Is simply not believing in an intelligent supernatural designer (God). But without evolution, there is no basis for this belief. They could say 'we don't have the answer', sure.
But think of this, atheists. Do you know everything? Of course not. Do you know half of everything? No. Let's say you know half of everything. Then is it possible for God to exist in the other half you don't know of?

Yeah, my Hitler aegument felt a bit blunt. It was mostly Fascism.

I believe we all micro-evolved from the first Man, Adam, and that is how we are now so diverse (skin colour, etc). I agree all humans are equal (of the same kind, homo sapiens sapiens).

Where does morality come from? Is it just instinct? If nothing matters and there is no god, then the law is completely arbitrary. Is right and wrong decided by authority? Yes. But if humans are the highest authority, why can't I shoot you? Slavery was legal in the past, so that must have been fine, right? Wrong.
There is a God, the ultimate authority, who has set instructions into every one of us on how He wants us to behave. This is the feeling of morality. I can say what is right and wrong because my Creator God has given me laws through the Bible. Atheists can try and say what is right or wrong, but they would have no foundational reason as to what they think it is right or wrong.

Evolution assumes life arose from non-life (abiogenesis), which is against the natural law of biogenesis. The Big Bang assumes faster-than-light travel to explain such evenly dispersed uniform background radiation in our universe. It assumes all life has a common ancestor. You cannot prove a dead thing had ANY offspring whatsoever. Evolution is founded upon assumptions.

There's so much research that can be done on this topic. I can only list a few examples. One of which is soft dinosaur tissue found today (unfossilised).
"These dinosaur fossils are typically dated by the standard geologic time scale as at least 65 million years old. However, the presence of intact tissue presents a significant challenge to the assigned date of these fossils. Can tissue (aggregates of interconnected cells) retain its natural, flexible characteristics in so-called ancient fossils?"
https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/contact-crs/item/87-idino-investigation-of-dinosaur-intact-natural-osteo-tissue
This proves dinosaurs aren't millions of years old.
Many other scientific finds have been found to challenge evolution, but people insist it must be true. They repeatedly ignore previous evidence and never mention it to the presses. Prostrate fossils, clams on top of Mount Everest, whale bones in the Chilean deserts, and fossilised human footrints inside dinosaurs'.

Now, evolution (which is the basis of atheism) is a belief that fully implies racism. If we evolved from apes, surely black people are less evolved, right? That would make white people the most evolved. Surely we should try to be more evolved, so we should eliminate the least evolved? And if atheism were true, how do we tell right fron wrong? We have no higher authority other than us; therefore Man is God. I could say I will shoot you in 5 minutes, and that would be perfectly good; who is to say I am wrong?
Hitler believed in evolution. He thought Jews were the least evolved, so he killed 6 million of them to further human evolution. That was not kind and was very racist. He basically started World War Two, so that is not peaceful. Evolution, which is the foundation of atheism, is not peaceful nor kind, and it encourages racism.

Well yes there are negative sides of all religions, and I am not Catholic so I do not believe what they believe. IMO what they did Was wrong. But then again there are many cases in the Bible of selfish screw-ups by people.

And how do you deduce that? We could go ahead and say that we would be much kinder, less racist, and more peaceful if it weren't for the implications of the false idea of evolution.

To saving you money.

I agree with all of the points you guys have made. However IMO the common ancestry type of evolution shouldn't even be called a 'scientific theory'.
According to Wikipedia, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
You cannot observe nor experiment with ape-to-man style evolution, because there simply isn't enough time in our lifespan. It is IMO not well substantiated as there is just as much if not better evidence for Creation. And evoltion is filled with so many assumptions that it can just as well be called a glorified guess as to our origin. It should not be called a scientific theory.