The evidence is just insufficient. There is nothing it to say what did the creating. All it is doing is identifying a methodology and building blocks used in the construction.<quoted text>
Which is a good start. The next level comes when you start to *test* your ideas to see whether they work to predict new events. By repeated testing while attempting to prove your ideas *wrong*, you can gain more confidence that they are *right*. This is an ongoing process and is the basis of the scientific method.
Most atheists don't claim an *absolute* knowledge. They do claim that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of deities.
It takes faith to believe there wasn't a creator out of the possibilities of how this all began, which is an assertion, and which is not objective, and not scientific.
Criticizing old religious texts because of their age and terminologies is poor research. The same can be said for 20 year old science texts. If the old one was wrong, then so is the new. You meld it all together and take another look.