What it all boils down to
In just about any atheist/theist debate, weather about evolution/creationism or what have you, it all comes down to one core debate. And that is speculation. Both sides are arguing that the other is just speculating to come to their conclusions. The truth is, both sides are right in that respect. Theists claim that non-theists are basing their assumptions on data that is not 100% guaranteed, that they have to take some liberties to come to their conclusions, and of course everyone knows this is true to an extent. Scientist sometimes really have to. Scientists can show fossils of what we believe to be the original life forms, but they can't say for certain which one was first. No, there is always that chance that there was something older but we just hadn't found it yet. On the flip side of that, atheists claim theist base their conclusion on nothing but speculation, assuming that the bible is the word of god and all answers can be found within it while having no data at all to back up their claims. And of course that is true. So who should prevail in the debate? While the claims of atheists (and scientist) may not have the definitive certainty the theists have, atheists have an actual basis for their assumptions. If this were a court of law and the jury was filled full with theists and the prosecutor put forth all this evidence of someone's guilt while the defendant quoted passages from a single book from eons ago to prove his innocence, every single one of those theist would find him guilty. Having some evidence is always better than having none at all. So in conclusion I say the debate has really already been won, theists just have to learn to accept it.