There are millions of scientists and multi-millions of happy fellow travelers who believe that somehow, some way a DNA molecule assembled itself, despite the contrary scientific argument that the chances of that ever occurring are less than one in the number of atoms in the universe

This is simply an untrue pair of statements. Scientists have demonstrated a 100% plausible path from base inorganic elements we have physical evidence of existing on the primordial earth - to the component amino acids of RNA. - And I can and will provide links to this if you don't believe it. Something you have been unable to do.

RNA has been shown to be self-replicatory - and we have plenty of examples of other self-replicatory proteins such the prions that cause Alzheimers.

And the ID math is simply wrong. Not in the least because these processes have been demonstrated to occur fairly spontenously in the lab.

So you move on from that and these same scientists and atheist or agnostic hopefuls then buy into the theory that from one-celled animals came micro-organisms and then they became clams and then these clams through chance or “natural selection” (what a joke of a term)

Now you are engaged in the logical fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule. Setting aside that it isn't a question of "chance OR natural selection" but a combination of the two (IE you mix in the Strawman Fallacy) - there simply isn't any "joke" in the notion of "natural selection". Even the HRCC uses it within its own internal promotion processes.

had the “ability” to start growing gills and eyes and fins and nervous systems and reproductive systems and circulatory systems and then lungs and livers and spleens and legs and joints and fur and oh my Lord it is so insane I tire of thinking of it

Another Appeal to Ridicule combined with Strawman. What you are essentially doing is re-asserting the "Irreducible Complexity" arguement of ID. IE that Gills somehow are required to "spontaneously form" in full completeness - rather than being an interrative restructuring of processes such as the circulatory processes within sponges. etc. etc. And there simply isn't any "irreducibility" in this. Has every structure been so deconstructed? No of course not. If it had there would be nothing for genomic zoologists to do.

But that doesn't mean you have demonstrated any sort of refutation simply because YOU "tire of thinking of it" - that your brain is not capable of more flexiblity (and this is Ad hominem turn about for your comment about "so insane") doesn't mean that is the limit of human reasoning.

My point: Don’t anyone bore me with their stupidity by saying there is no evidence for God.

And this is now the twinned Logical Fallacies of the Burden of Proof and Special Pleading (<link>) simply because you are bored is no evidence of God.

When challenged for independently verifiable substantiation of your "proofs of God's Existance" you have NOT ONCE been able to offer one piece of irrefutable corroboratory evidence. You claim you lack the time to do this, yet someone as passionate about this as you should logically have this easily available in at least one circumstance.

And yet you do not. I suspect because you actually are not very well versed in the kind of critical reasoning analysis that recognizes such proofs. I suspect that you believe that proofs that convince you are necessarily sufficient - when they aren't anywhere close - as you have demonstrated over and over again.

So I leave all those sorry beings behind and move on to the next question: Given there is a God which God?

And this is known as the Red Herring Fallacy. Having failed to establish a case for the more basic, you distract by leaping on to a even less verifiable assertion.

Can you really not reason well at all? But I'll go along for the ride since even in this case you fail to reason logically.

To suggest it does not matter to God if one follows Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Shintoism or Christianity, again, is a falsehood poorly argued

Only because you put forth strawman arguements for that. You argue definitionally:

• There is an accountabilty to be had - prove it
• Jesus DID come down from heaven to suffer and die - PROVE IT
• Jesus is the only path to god - PROVE IT.

You can prove none of that

The point I want to make but cannot without all this “wordiness” is that there are many other fundamental reasons I could make or argue as to why Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, is the one true faith ordered by God and not any of the other major faiths in history

This is the Logical Fallacy of "Begging the Question" and its associated Proof by Delayed Lemma <link>. You have not demonstrated even the BASIC reasons you claim. So you have absolutely ZERO BASIS for making claims about "many other fundamental reasons" when you have not offered even one so far.

But do keep in mind, the primary mission of the Church is for the salvation of souls

Again, no observable evidence of this. The observable evidence is that the primary mission of the HRCC is its own survival