Two scenarios that may/may not happen.

[The Reality Salesman01]

science demands that any hypothesis be falsifiable, there is a small chance that the theory of Evolution may be turned upside down, but as I said, this is just a hypothetical situation. So, based on that, does it follow that the creation story in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is true? Would your atheism be "shaken" if such far stretching hypothetical situation ever became a reality? And why?

 It's kind of a necessary feature for an idea or proposition to have, now isn't it? Falsifiability? If there is no difference between a proposition that is false, and a proposition that is true, then what's the point?  Now, carry that thought into your question and imagine what it would take to prove that all creation spontaneously appeared with the clap of divine hands. What would this evidence look like? Would it be a complex thing such as an elephant, or even a banana, atomizing into existence without any natural pre-existing cause? I suppose it would have to be. And it would have to occur in such a way that could rule out any natural explanation; which brings us back to the problem of whether or not such a thing is falsifiable.  Could there be any way to distinguish an elephant that is brought into existence out of nothing from an elephant that SEEMED to come into existence from nothing?

second issue regarding Christ's existence.  I'm less enthusiastic to accept the claim that Jesus never existed. A good number of historians agree that he lived, also considering what I learned so far about history at university, we can't be 100% sure, after all, history is subjective. History is based on records from people who have their own agendas and biases, and it is a fact that they chose what or include and not include in their writings, it doesn't follow that something didn't happen or a person didn't exist just because some writings don't include such event or person. Also, there are chances that in the future we may find a good and reliable evidence for people that believed never to have existed. Therefore, it is safe not to be so "sure." What do you think of such argument?

Some people think Socrates may not have existed, and that he was just a character Plato created to star in his dialogues. I don't really care...I still like reading it. But I also don't have any special beliefs attached to Socrates. As for Jesus, I was raised Christian, and whether or not Jesus actually existed has never been a question that had much meaning to my transition away from the faith.  In my experience, Christians seem far too entrenched in their beliefs to be bothered by the challenge to Jesus' existence. The important point is, if he lived (and lets just assume he did)--was he brought back to life after he died, and were his claims about God true?  If you believe that those things are true, then whether or not he actually existed will not be a question you are likely to entertain; and if you're not convinced, it's just not an interesting question.

You're right, time could provide more concrete evidence of his existence; but the important questions would still lack justification.  Is there any evidence to support a person being killed and then resurrected? Is there evidence of these resurrected people levitating into space and transcending into a nonphysical realm such as "heaven"? What is "nonphysical"? Is there evidence of the god that this Jesus describes? Is there any logical coherence between reality and the description of what Jesus says his God's wants/abilities/needs/plans? These are far more impactful questions that, once answered (or not) render Jesus' actual existence rather uninteresting, at least for me...