Wow, what a load of garbage. I don't know if you were looking for us to respond to this, but this is what I would say:

    Yes and yes. I've looked at the historical evidence for Jesus and Scripture both now as an atheist, and back when I was a Christian, and I've always have found it lacking (even when I was a Catholic, but I had "faith" then, so it was ok). The bulk of the evidence for a historical Jesus is either based on forgeries (like the Testimonium Flavinum), or is twisted to beyond the truth (like saying Suetonius wrote about Christians when he actually wrote about Chrestians). And just to put an extra nail in the coffin, none of it are contemporary (i.e., from or close to the time of Jesus). All of it is at least one or two generations after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Added to this, we do know of people who were in Jerusalem when Jesus was supposed to be alive, and none of them mention Jesus. Furthermore, there are tons of other false messiahs who existed at the time (at least one Simon Magnus, is even mentioned in the bible) who were very similar in nature to Jesus, many of them coming long before Jesus. All the church has ever been able to say about them, is that they were planted by the devil.

    Scripture as verified literature?  There's a bunch of nonsense.  I'd love to see some proof to this.  Firstly, for prophecy to be proof, you have to first prove that Jesus existed, and that he actually did the things he said he did.  There isn't even any good evidence that he existed let alone the things he did.  Besides, it isn't exactly hard for your main character to fulfill prophecy when it is a fictional book.

    As for inconsistencies in the bible, there is ton of them, and not just because of lazy reading.  I've read much of the new testament in English, and I've begun reading it in Koine Greek, and it contradicts itself all the time.  The authors of the gospels can't even agree with what Jesus' last words were:

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" - Mathew 27:46 and Mark 15:34

"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" - Luke 23:46

"It is finished" - John 19:30

    This are true contradictions, not lazy reading or anything, but true contradictions.  And it gets worst.  One of the things that I've learned about the bible since beginning to learn Koine, is that even the different Greek texts that we use to compose the bible don't agree with each other.  I have a Greek bible (United Bible Society, Fourth Revised Edition) and there isn't a single page in it that doesn't contain notes on different variations on the Greek text.  How can you say that the bible is internally consistent when we aren't even sure of exactly what it says?  And just to drill the point a little further, many of the letters in the bible attributed to Paul (1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, etc) we are sure now are fake.  And as for the gospels, after starting the read John in Koine, I don't have any doubt that it is a Gnostic text.  So your bible that you say is "the most well verified literature on the planet" is composed false letters, contradicting stories, and at least one gospel where the author didn't even believe in a historical Jesus.

For a good list of inconsistencies (not all of which I agree with, but most are true inconsistencies) go to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

    Scientists can't provide an explanation for the existence of this planet?  Actually, we have a pretty good model of how planets form around stars, and we know its a good model because we can see planet formation around other stars.  As for evolution not explaining speciation, that's definitely nonsense.  Speciation works like this:

    You start out with Generation A.  Generation A gives birth to offspring, and those offspring are virtually identical to there parents, but each has some small variations to them (some might be bigger, some might be a little smaller, some might have sharper or duller teeth, etc.).  Those who have variations that help it survive, are more likely to, and those with debilitating variations, die off.  So now we have Generation B, which on average is just a little bit different from Generation A.  Not much different, not even close to that of a new species, but a little bit different nonetheless.  And it goes on down the line, Generation C is a little bit different then Generation B, etc.  And it goes on like this all the way to Generation Z.  Now, if you look at each generation and compare it to its subsequent generation or previous generation they will only be a little bit different, and will still be the same species.  However (and this is the beauty of evolution), when you compare Generation A with Generation Z, they are two different species.  The sum of the changes that have occurred during each generation has now made a new species.  Given enough time, you even get different family, orders, classes etc.

    All the things you've claimed science that answer, science can.  You just haven't kept up with it.

    As for the comfort factor of evolution, that's just more nonsense.  There isn't anything comforting about evolution (indeed, when I think of the things that evolution favors, it often sends chills down my spine), and evolution says nothing about the existence of god.  Absolutely nothing.  The only thing to that end it says, is that you don't need biblical creationism to explain the variety of species on the planet.

    By saying that absolute proof is impossible, that doesn't mean that all ideas are equal.  Science works on probability, and probability for one dictates that evolution is by far the most likely answer for the life we see around us.  All that God has ever been (in any religion) is a god of the gaps, and science is quickly removing those gaps.  As for Gandhi, let me share a quote he once said:  "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

    As for liking Christianity after reading the gospels, reading the bible is EXACTLY what pushed me away from Christianity.  It's an interesting read from a historical point of view, but to think that any of it is true, is completely self-delusional.