Sure, that's understandable. And likewise, I'm not comfortable with the notion that becuase I don't know, I therefore must believe it's all coincidence until it's absolutely, 100% proven, demonstratable, peer reviewed, and all that other stuff, says otherwise.
There is nothing that is or has ever been demonstratable about the claims of events from billions of years ago from the evolution side. I'll give you one example. According to the evolution myth, the first single living cell, which reproduced asexually, eventually had to split off into an evolutionary line and reproduce sexually. There is zero evidence that this happened in the past, and there is absolutely no experiement that demonstrates such an evolutionary transition is even possible.
Atheists and evolutionists tend to believe they KNOW all the answers, until they're called out on it, then they just backpeddle like dishonest politicians (sorry for comparing you to politicans, it's just the best analogy that came to mind at the moment).
Well, that involves a person who is genuinely curious to actually do research into different religions, instead of just saying, "Oh, there's so many religions, therefore I'll just throw my hands up in the air and say they're all false because there's many of them."
Or you could go with the notion that there is a god that exists and created the universe, but never interacts with us or communicates with us. This however relies on the assumption that this god would create all this life and then never communicates or tried to communicate with us in any way shape or form, and if you think about it, that position isn't very logical.