That is what atheists want; scientific evidence that God, and the supernatural exist. We Christians flounder about trying to come up with examples from the natural world to show the intricacies of nature, and convince atheists that natural selection is a poor way to explain the massively complex universe around us. We are bound to fail in this manner.
We cannot succeed in conveying "evidence" to atheists, because they have declared themselves the arbiters of what they will consider as evidence, and what they are unwilling to allow in the conversation. It is like a little boy wanting to belong to a club whose members find every reason not to allow him in. First, he needs a blue jacket. He gets one, but it is cerulean, not royal blue. He replaces it with a royal blue jacket, but now the buttons are 2 centimeters too large. He buys yet another jacket, but this one's stitches are too close together. Once more he returns with a blue jacket, but this one was made in China and they require a jacket made only in Belgium. Finally, exhausted from trying to meet a standard that is being controlled by those who don't want him in the first place, he walks away, leaving the club members in their tight little group.
Arguing with an atheist, from a scientific standpoint, is very much like this. You can point out A, B, and C in scientific studies and breakthroughs, but the response will be something like, "Well A was a study done by someone who might believe in God, so it's biased. B might indicate Intelligent Design, but the study was done in such and such a country whose standards are not quite the same as ours. C seems perfectly fine, but it is only one study and doesn't line up with other two that we like better." And so on, and so on. No matter what you bring out, it will never be enough.
Theoretically, atheism might seem intellectually appealing to its proponents, but the problem with atheism, is that no one actually lives in its sphere of thinking. Atheists go home and their everyday lives are much the same as the rest of the world's. They look for love, raise their children, and look for fulfillment in their careers, hobbies, or interests. Unlike what some would insinuate, atheism does not make one a Machiavellian monster, though surely they have their share, as does any group. And that is what is most interesting about atheism. Within the denial of God's existence, there is an implicit indication that there is no Moral Law to which people must ascribe. No God means No Rules. Yet, whenever engaging atheists in discussions, they seem to constantly rely on a set of Moral Laws.
Over and over they will cry for evidence. Why? Because they do not want to believe in something false. They have a quest to seek after Truth. In some ways it is a noble quest, being willing to release all things that might not be true, in order to live in truth. However, if there is no God, and therefore no Moral Law why are they so intent on living "truthfully"? There is no innate goodness in living "truthfully" because there is no "good." Why be outraged when people teach religion? How is it any different than someone teaching a particular dance step, or the way to paint a beautiful picture?
They will say that they want people to be free. They want to be able to live without the crushing oppression of religion. They will slander religious proponents in the most scathing ways, calling them hypocrites, bigots, and power-hungry maniacs, because they feel that humanity has suffered horribly under religious belief.
From whence comes this "moral" outrage that seethes in atheists? After all, if there is no Moral Law, then injustice and suffering lose their meaning. Why should a human care if people are oppressed or murdered? Do we care if a pack of wolves eviscerates a caribou? If people are simply more evolved animals, than the only Law to which they must answer is that of self-preservation. It would not be wrong to eradicate a people and take over their lands if not doing so meant your family would die. There would be no sense of right or wrong.
Completely frivolous comparison:
On Star Trek, the Vulcans were always portrayed as being highly evolved because they acted only out of logic, not emotion. I always wondered at the portrayal of this concept, because if people lived only out of logic, the world would be a very scary place and Vulcans would be a very evil people--albeit imaginary ones. Logic, in and of itself, would do anything to acquire the goal at hand. As long as the mission is accomplished, who cares how one gets there. Pure logic is about efficiency and ease. It makes more sense to cheat on an exam and get an A, then it does to study and get a B. It would be illogical not to cheat. Therefore, Vulcans should be morally untrustworthy and devious.
Of course, atheists are not Vulcans, their ears aren't pointy enough...and their blood is red, not green....and they've never traveled at warp speed.
Despite the claim that life should be lived purely on rationality and logic, it is impossible. The things that most people live for are completely beyond the scope of scientific logic. There is a push to try and explain away innate morality, intelligence, and self-awareness as nothing more than evolutionary necessities, but that simply doesn't hold water. Morality does not exist outside of God. Arguments can be made about the survival of the species and the need for order, but those also imply that the survival of the species is somehow good, worthy, and more important than the individual--a very morally, altruisitc view.
In some ways, the more atheists fight for Truth, the more they reveal about the reality that there is a Truth to fight for...a way of living and thinking that is right, and a way of living and thinking that is wrong.
Very familiar ideas to those of us who believe in God.