KillerArg: Atheism is in no way a religion nor is it a "faith". Just as "healthy" is not a form of disease, not believing in god or supernatural events is not a type of belief in god or supernatural events. There really was no substance to your argument beyond claims without logical support or linked evidence so there's little need to go into great detail.
What cannot be proven is god. It goes something like this:
1) Claims which contradict existing proven claims are "false until proven true".
2) Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is an existing proven claim.
3) A being knonw as god MUST be able to create matter and energy.
Thus, god contradicts existing proven claims and defaults to "false until proven true"... which you may have been able to argue against had you not shot yourself in the foot by
stating "
I ... do not believe God can be proven with reason and logic."
Tough break.
You're now going to have to eat the words I linked to or concede the claim "god exists" is false.
The burden of proof has always and will always lay squarely on the shoulders of theists to prove their folklore actually happened.
The observed universe does not evidence a god for a variety of reasons. It's taken apologists decades to rationalize the Genesis creation account into something that's not laughed at by only the most faithful individuals. We know that complex structures and systems can arise naturally. Finally, you have no evidence that god created anything or that he even exists. It's circular reasoning that lacks any causal link. It's not unlike declaring the increase in global warming is due to the decrease in pirates.
Now, why am I not surprised that you've decided to use the term "Macro-Evolution" in a discussion of this nature? It tells me you've been discourteous and are trollishly arguing subjects you haven't taken the time to understand. It would be like an atheist stating "We shouldn't worship Jesus because he told Jews to murder Romans in their sleep." This isn't a position you should have to defend against because it's not something you've claimed. It's an allegation born of misunderstanding.
Your assertions about so-called "Macro-Evolution" are no different. Allow me to set you straight with the help of the University of Berkley.
Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”
Response: Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
Finally, all you've offered us as an alternative is "we don't know what caused it so goddidit". This is called god-of-the-gaps reasoning and is the same flawed logic that told early people that Zeus made thunder and Ra was actually the sun. Though we don't have all the answers, turning to pre-bronze-age logic that has NEVER been proven isn't the path to truth, my friend. It is, however, absolutely the way to cement ignorance.