It is of course fine to have an opinion about a god existing. Postive or negative. However, if you think there is a god and then use misunderstandings and simplistic over generalizations about science to back up your opinion, you end up sounding kind of silly.
It is bad enough when people fill the gaps in human knowledge with their god and say that his existence is the only explanation. But when people fill their ignorance with their god, it gets embarrassing.
If you are not inspired to learn enough about science to argue against it cogently, you might try sticking to moral issues and and leave the physical world alone. You are not helping your cause otherwise.
It is the job of science to explore, discover, invent and theorize, among other things. It is an ongoing process that will never be able to discover everything. Religion takes it upon itself to tell us it has all the important answers already. Which would be less of a problem if any of the religious explanations matched reality in useful quantities. They don't. I tend to assume that Christians and muslims in particular are very interested in there being an afterlife, and they seem forced by their hopes to mold this life in such a way that it end up looking consistent with said afterlife. Dissing science is one tactic of believers. And most practice what they preach by not knowing diddley about it.
I would love there to be some sort of afterlife that I could enjoy. The ill-defined christian heaven holds no appeal, but if after death I could continue on in some other form and enjoy the universe a bit more, I'd love it. However, my hopes for such things, my opinion that there should be an afterlife, are completely irrelevant because they do not match anything we know about death. Hence I ignore my hopes because I know there is nothing to base them on.
As Azdgari said a few posts back, the universe is not subject to your opinion. Nor is it subject to mine or anyone else's. Through science, we humans do our best to take biases out of the picture as we search for truth. (I don't for a second claim that science is without any bias. Scientists exist within cultures, and said cultures have remarkable power over individuals and institutions. But science does what it can to minimize such influences. ) Religions must, by their very nature, keep their own biases on the front line of the debate and spend most of their time insisting they are truths. They even go so far as to claim that the lack of proof is in and of itself proof that something powerful and intelligent is responsible for the universe.
I personally prefer to go where the evidence takes us, even if it means that I don't get to comfort myself in my old age about a pending "streets of gold" experience. The pursuit of truth is far more important to me than is fooling myself for my own convenience.