'evolution' as an explanation for the existence of mankind is somewhat lacking.
You have to throw in material, chemical, and psychological evolution as well to get a complete history of the advent of man beginning with the Big Bang. Cultural evolution takes us to modern, technological man.
Material evolution culminates in an earth made of an assortment of elements, chemical evolution culminates with the first life, biological evolution gives us animal life, and psychological evolution gives us consciousness then intellect.
It is only a hypothesis that we all originate from LUCA.
No, it's much more than that. Creationism is only a hypothesis, but the theory of evolution has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. Do you doubt that? If so, your argument will be unreasonable, that is not properly evidenced nor sound.
Just his name needs to be hidden, right?
I believe God does not need people's needs to exist.
I don't know what that means as written, but presumably you meant that "God" exists independent of humanity. That's backward. The concept of gods was a human invention.
I believe I didn't know I was in a cave until I saw the light of day which I believed because other people believed in it.
I don't think you understand what you wrote there. How about, "I didn't know I was in the dark until I saw the light." You can leave all three of your believe/believeds out of the sentence. You're describing enlightenment until you say that it comes from believing others.
There is plenty of evidence. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Then claim that the lack of it IS evidence that no gods exist. it’s a ridiculous position, but they don’t hear any criticism. They fight it tooth and nail even while they proclaim what critical thinkers they are.
No, you don't have plenty of evidence in support of a god belief. You just have your beliefs, which you hold by faith. If it were otherwise, critical thinkers would know about that evidence themselves. They have the same sensory apparatus and neural circuits as the faithful. Since they claim to have evidence in support of their god beliefs, we know they are incorrect.
you don't get to set the standard for what is evidence
The standard for interpreting evidence comes from academia. Those rules are tried and true. They work.
You don't have to understand or apply that yourself, but if you use rogue "logic," you've gone off the reason reservation and your conclusions have no value to the critical thinker. And those ideas have no practical value. They can't be used for anything except to comfort those needing comforting who can be comforted by such ideas.
nor what anyone else chooses to do with it.
Like I said, feel free to use whatever rules you like for deciding what's true about the world. It doesn't matter to others how you use your mind to assess reality. As for me, I'll stick with critical thinking.
Same goes for science. No truth can be derived from it
All knowledge of reality is acquired empirically (experientially). Other ideas about reality aren't knowledge.
Then why are you always proclaiming scientism and atheism to be superior to any and all other alternatives?
Empiricism and skepticism are both superior to belief by faith if one uses results as a yardstick. What have we gotten from faith? Astrology, alchemy, Ouija boards, the flat earth society, and creationism are some of faith's greatest achievements to date, and not a single useful idea from the lot.
