Evolution can not be proven.
What's your criteria for proven or not proven? Scientific theories are proven by testing them repeatedly and seeing if any of the results contradict the theory. If any do, the theory is revised in light of the new information. This applies to all scientific theories, including evolution, universal gravity, and atomic theory. If your criteria for proving something is different than that, then I say that it cannot reasonably apply to a scientific theory.
Where are the missing links, those being fossils showing any living creature transforming from one to the next. Even one. They don't exist.
What do you mean by 'transforming'? Are you talking about a chimera, where you have a creature that is part one animal and part another? That's not what a transitional form (a "missing link") is. A transitional form is a form that falls between one life form and another, that shows a general line of descent.
To me, it's is considerably easier to believe in God and that He created all of life than it is to believe in evolution.
Science is not about ease of belief. "God did it" is the simplest possible explanation, but it is also the most worthless one for purposes of actually discovering anything meaningful about anything.
But we believe in faith, not because of science
I should hope not. Science isn't really intended to teach people to take things on faith.
however, contrary to what you teach, science has not disproved Gods existence.
And it may never disprove the existence of God. So what? Science isn't about God, it's about figuring out the natural world on its own terms.
I invite your correction if I am wrong but doesn't the theory of evolution teach that all life came from a single cell organism?
Consider yourself corrected; the theory of evolution teaches that organisms that are well-adapted to their environment will be likely to survive and reproduce (this is known colloquially as "survival of the fittest"). Evolution, in and of itself, suggests nothing about the origins of life on Earth. What suggests those origins are the lines of descent traced back through the history of the Earth, but that is not really part of any discussion about evolution.
You can accept that but not God?
If you had evidence which could be independently observed and verified which demonstrated the existence of a being which fit the attributes of God, then this might be a worthwhile question. As it is, it begs the question.
If believers in the Holy bible are wrong then we lose nothing. We just die. But if the bible is true, and the saved burn in hell for eternity then I caution you to carefully consider what you are preaching.
Pascal's wager, which to be frank, is kind of worthless. I submit that if God exists, and has the attributes of being just and benevolent as Christians claim, then he would not need to punish nonbelievers (the unsaved, I think you mean) with eternal hellfire, because that serves neither justice nor benevolence. Therefore, there is no reason at all to believe out of fear of eternal punishment.
If you see a painting there must be a painter. See a building there must be a builder. See a creation there must be a creator. There was a beginning. If I am correct in my faith, then I prey "May God bless you and open you heart and eyes to the truth. Amen".
This presumes that the universe was created, which is by no means proven. So your examples of a painter needing a painting, a building needing a builder, and a creation needing a creator, are moot. You cannot prove that the universe was created merely by stating that something that was created needs a creator.
