Because when someone doesn't agree with what you think, believe, or do you have to put them down. It's only a school-yard paradigm.

You are acting as if these things are mutual. They aren't. We can clearly see that the sun does not revolve around the earth. Can we clearly see that there is no god/God? (Whichever.) Even if the Christian God is proven absolutely "fake" in some time, then what about the others? 

You can not flat out say that there is no god, or Christian God to be specific. There are even documents/historical evidence to support things that had happened in the Bible. Science is all about evidence and proof, correct? Then why not take this religious proof seriously?

I'm not sure why people think evolution is about debunking god. It isn't, nor would I ever make the claim that there is no god. I simply say, until there is sufficient evidence for the theistic claim then I remain a skeptic. Which means the claim remains in limbo. But how do we address existence? We move from a position of non-belief to belief based upon evidence. So being a skeptic means I don't believe in god. 

We can clearly see evolution in this same way. If you haven't read anything about phylogeny, I highly recommend it. It orders the entire hierarchy of common ancestry of the animal and plant life based upon DNA. I realize DNA is much more complex than fossils, but DNA is where the bulk of the evidence is. Fossils are nice for layman, like us, but unnecessary really. If you want fossils in particular, look at all of the hominid fossils. 

Ah, the bible is a collection of many books. Simply because a few passages in a couple books are historically accurate does not make the collection as a whole accurate; nor does it lend credence to things we can't confirm. 

Why can't people be allowed to believe in what they want to? We allow liverpool fans to do that, why not religious people?

In all seriousness though, if people can find support in believing in something, why do you have to try so hard to tear it down?

To late

This question comes up too much!

Yes, for the most part I tend to support believe what you want. But this is problematic because of voting. If this worldview that isn't based upon evidence is the majority perspective, then these people can start issuing policies which reflect this. And they already have - slavery for instance, jim crow laws, interracial marriage, etc.

Simply put, it promotes dangerous thinking. You're taught to accept based upon faith and not upon evidence.

It is perfectly fine for people to find support in believing something comforting even though I personally believe this will make a person weaker, unable to accept reality for what it is. Religion goes way beyond this point though. It rules over countries and oppresses basic human rights and choices. Let it be someone's cruch, but don't let its corrupt moral values and ancient beliefs infect the ignorant.

How do you truly convince yourself that that's going to happen whilst you know you're only taking it on faith?

Not only does this have nothing to do with evolution but you also do not understand that in certain conditions organic materials can survive for millions of years.  Science is ever evolving with new observations and experiments to help us understand on how the world works, theories are build on enough evidence to support a hypothesis and sometimes we find something that changes our presepective on how we thought our world works. If this is considered brainwashing then I am very curious what unverified, anonymous, untested reports which people were forced to believe for hunderds of years are called.

It was a loaded question, to be fair. "God played no part in it" is different from "God doesn't exist". In many people's eyes, that's still saying that God exists, but only observed evolution and played no part in it.