Kalos: Look, lets just assume all atheists just want to be atheists. We can still discuss what evidence there is for Gods existence. I have only read the first article you cited and this seems to be the most concrete single point:
As this article from Scientific American magazine points out, “It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10 to the 127th power years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids.” And protein folding is only the first step in creating life from lifeless chemicals. Further, random processes would need a heck of a lot longer to fold proteins than would a supercomputer programmed to do so. But, the problem is, the universe is only about 15 billion years old.
Notice what the quotes says: It is computationally demanding to MODEL the folding of proteins. This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution since in nature proteins just fold themselves (or not) depending on the laws of nature. What the author of the article properly want to say is random chance generating a protein that can fold is very implausible, but this is not at all what the quote is related to.
A nearly perfect analogy would be to say wood cannot burn, because modelling how wood burns at the atomic level is computationally hard. The argument is really no better than that.
If I am irrational or not does not change the fact the author seems to lack basic reading comprehension skills.