I believe god and evolution are conflicting ideas, becuase there's substantiated evidence for evolution, while there aren't any for the existence of god. I don't see what's so sad about having that opinion.
So because there's no evidence for a God that means the two ideas are completely incompatible?
Your logic is incorrect. You are implying that because there is no evidence to prove something, that it means it is incompatible with things that have evidence. Essentially, you are claiming the inverse of what religious fundies claim.
The problem with trying to prove the existence of a God is that evidence will never be supernatural, while God, by definition, is supernatural. Ever. All evidence is natural, because it can be observed in the natural world. The only way we can measure something that supersedes nature is if it has an effect on the natural world,
but there's no reason why a supernatural object should be inclined to have an effect on the current world, and assuming so would be pretty geocentric, unless you assume that this being does this all the time everywhere (some spiritual models postulate that "god" is the energy that exists in everything, so in a way, you're a part of god).
Ultimately, a non-literal reading of the Bible does not produce readings that are incompatible with evolution. In fact, only a few verses are incompatible in Genesis, a book that, outside of creationist loons, is usually never considered a literal truth and is often not even considered an important text in Christian circles.
A nonreligious example to why your logic fails can be shown with "Last Thursdayism". This is a satirical parody of the creationist argument that god could have made the world with apparent age - if this is true, then he could have easily made it last thursday with apparent age. This argument (and the creationist ideas behind it) suggest that the beginning of the universe's systems are actually set at time = n instead of time = 0. However, as we all know, regardless of this creation, these functions still work, and we can still roll behind the value of n and interpret behind this point, regardless of the actual true age of the universe. The fact that these models still hold up, regardless of when the universe was actually created, shows their value, and their predictive power has already been used.
Thus, this can be removed via Ockham's razor - regardless of whether or not the universe was created 13 billion years ago, 6 thousand years ago, or last week - the creation of the universe with "apparent age" does nothing to disprove the existence of evolution.
But does that actually mean that the universe
couldn't have started at any of those points in time? There's no reason why time = n was the start of the universe instead of time = 0. It could have started at any point. However, this point is
irrelevant because it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Because many interpretations of God truly have no influence on whether or not evolution could have occurred,
it is irrelevant to whether or not God exists. His existence or lack thereof does nothing to prove or disprove evolution, and therefore to claim that they are mutually exclusive concepts is
entirely wrong, since
the two have no influence on the possibility of the other's existence.
Another consequence is that some very theoretical concepts, such as String Theory, the effects of Planck Length/Time, Loop Quantum Gravity, and microscopic curved dimensions (required for String Theory and M-Theory) are automatically incompatible with ideas that have been proven true, such as electromagnetism. There are physical limitations to "evidence" that we can have to support claims due to the very nature of the universe; however, because these things have extremely useful predictive power, they are still helpful. Perhaps the power in God though isn't in his predictive power, but rather the power that he gives to an individual in the form of spiritual power. It's a nonliteral power that gives people hope and the ability to move forward. It's true that not everyone uses god and his name well, and use things in the Bible and other religious texts to promote bigotry, but to claim that it's bad and useless automatically, and especially claim that such a power is not compatible with evolution, is an incredible
I know that you lost faith in the ability for religion to have any value whatsoever, and that's fine if that's your life. Nobody here is telling you that you have to be religious. I'm not religious, even. However, I have respect for it's philosophical consequences, and that it does not make mutually exclusive conditions against science, despite some people claiming this. It is woefully disrespectful to those who don't erase science in the name of evolution to have their beliefs and the possibility of mutual respect for these two concepts to have this concept be erased for your own inability to understand the existence of its possibility.
Again, you are essentially strawmanning what religious folk believe and claiming that they believe a literal truth. The concepts of the Bible or any religious text do not need to be read literally to have value obtained from them. Literal readers of religious texts are a minority.