It was a bit of a joke: If our ability to think is proof of a creator, then what is our ability to imagine creators proof of? Obviously, that they are imaginary.
Your line of argument is a logical fallacy called the "argument from ignorance". You're trying to claim (without evidence) that because your pet theory explains something that someone else can't explain, the theory must be correct.
By analogy, if I claim I have a million dollars in my pocket and you can't prove I don't, does that make me rich? If you apply your logic to this situation, I would think you'd be willing to make a strong wager about my millionaire status. Let's measure how much you believe in your own logic. How much money would you bet on the wager that I have a million dollars in my pocket, given that you can't (immediately) prove that I don't have it?
The time to believe something is when there is sufficient positive evidence FOR it. The lack of (or ignorance of) evidence for a competing claim has no bearing on the question.
As for your mischaracterization of evolution, you might try reading Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" to get a flavor for what it really says.