Hi all,
I'm not presuming to answer for Crash, but I would like to make a few comments.
Believing what you want despite the evidence is not generally a technique used by anyone but Creationists.
Hehe I don't think so. You've said so yourself you are open to the fact that you could be wrong. You would have to have ALL the evidence and knowledge in the universe not just some of it. You would have to know everything in order to state something like that, which I can assure you, you don't.
What is your belief anyway crashfrog? I presume you are an athiest/evolutionist but when you keep asking for evidence on God saying you will believe in God if there is evidence, you come across as someone undecided. Atm you tag along next to evolution, but if something better with more evidence comes along you'll follow that??
Saying that you are open to the fact that you may be wrong is
NOT believing in SPITE of the evidence. It is following where the evidence leads...that is part of the scientific method. I am pretty sure that if "incontrovertable"

evidence for the existance of God came up, most here would then "believe".
As far as "tagging along next to evolution", this is one of the most tested and evidence based theories out there. The evidence comes from multiple disciplines. One of the great things about science is its willingness to change to meet this evidence. If all the evidence in science pointed in the opposite direction from evolution, most here would not accept the theory. I don't think its a matter of being "undecided" as much as the idea that if evidence came in to overturn or change your ideas, one should be willing to follow the evidence and not your beliefs.
I also hope you are not equating atheism and evolution as many here are believers in God and still accept the TOE.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato