Evidence for God
The thing is, that even if you can't prove that (and someone probably can),
Purely as an aside, it appears you have as much faith in your position as others do in theirs. You simply prefer to call it science. I'll never claim that all science requires faith - far from it! - but the underpinnings, the assumptions that science is based upon (observation, experimentation, and conclusion) require just as much faith and hopeful certainty (I think we call it "peer review") as religion. That may well be the best method we have of determining truth: consensus. Some of history's greatest thinkers, however, have been dissenters, I would remind. But I find it to be INSANE to believe that all experimental and theoretical scientists are not swayed by their personal assumptions. The danger lies in taking one's biased take on temporary truth (I refer to the continuing analogy about cavemen and fire) and viewing it is as infallible. FWIW, I fear the same about the pope!
I think people are in profound error when they think religion is based PURELY upon faith. The proof many seek is in the acts they execute. The faith should come first, but the belief should be buttressed by tangible evidence in one's life soon after. Reason can be a wonderful, blessed tool, but to close one's eyes to only that which they can find scientific evidence for is very limiting.
That isn't meant to encourage mindless speculation about the yeti, before someone takes this in a wrong direction. Such belief is hopelessly selfish, while faith in God should be hopelessly selfless.
Eternal truth about God should not - cannot - be taken based upon consensus. It requires a personal approach, a personal interest, and personal effort. And that is difficult to translate to others.