If Joe says: "there is a deity in the universe", and Jack says: "there is no deity in the universe", let me ask you, who has the heaviest burden of proof?
Joe.
Science has all the proof in the world that life has developed without a god. There is NO proof that a God ever did a single damn thing. The bible, and God assert there was a flood (as do many cultural legends) science has absolutely disproved this. The evidence in science falls against God by disproving all the crap supposedly associated with God on our planet.
If joe says that he knew a man who broke into a bank with his son and saved everyone inside from a fire, but EVIDENCE shows that the bank doesn't even exist - how can you possibly say joe might be right?
this is exactly what you're doing. People are saying God exists because of things that have been proven untrue, but you're suggesting despite this they might still be right.