What if the evidence proved I was wrong?

Any time I watch a movie, I'm always thinking about the story of it. I enjoy analyzing the plot and if the movie isn't great, imagine where it could have gone. I recently watched a movie called "I Origins" which honestly was kind of a boring flick with some great story elements to it.
In the movie a scientist works towards ending the argument of how the eye evolved by proving its evolution through guided selection and gene manipulation. The story is told as if he's trying to disprove god, but in the end he finds incredibly, that something miraculous is happening. At one point the main character, who does not believe in god, is asked, if the evidence showed something different, would he change his belief?
I think this is a question everyone should ask themselves, believer and nonbelievers alike. The answer is one which tells whether someone seeks truth, or simply confirmation of what is already believed to be true.
I can say that my position would change if there was evidence for the miraculous considering I once believed whole-heatedly, but have changed my stance based on the evidence.
I have to ask myself: what would this evidence look like?
I can think of a lot of a lot of ways for a deity to reveal themselves to mankind which would be completely obvious. Imagine if a Christian at baptism developed stigmata as a mark from God, or if when Muslims prayed, Allah spoke form the heavens to the world like the prayers they play over the loud speakers at mosques. These would be extraordinary, but maybe it would be better to imagine something more subtle because maybe a deity just doesn't desire to be revealed so obviously.
I would say occurrences which defy the laws of nature would be a good start. If believers of any faith could perform miracles. If new kinds of animals which are different on a molecular level were discovered without an evolutionary branch, as if created.
It's important to realize that we cannot measure what we cannot perceive,  so there may be much more to our universe than we know, realize or even speculate, but it is simply beyond our grasp. There is still so much we don't know about what we can perceive. How could I not be flexible in my position? How can I not realize that 1000 years from now, my way of life will be as primitive to future generations as the vikings are to me now?
Humanity has made a lot of progress scientifically in its existence and I think there is much more to come. I think it is very interesting that as a species we have had many religious answers to how the world works, but now, our best explanations are natural and proven by science. Are there any examples where the explanation was scientific and is now best explained by religion?
A better question may be, if we studied our world without a confirmation bias towards religion, would religion ever be the answer? Would a non-believer study biology and discover God or Allah or any other specific or non-specific deity was the answer without guidance from a religious text?
This is the type of evidence that is needed to change the minds of those, like myself, who would seek the truth.
If I'm honest with myself, I hope for these shreds of evidence to come to light because I want there to be an afterlife. I want some kind of transfer of consciousness which makes me eternal. I fear death, and considering it is the one thing I'm guaranteed, it seems like a very compromising position. I'm forced to hope for more than mortality and in the mean time not let fear overwhelm me. I wonder how many more have felt exactly the way I do? I suppose that's the price of having this secret.
Sometimes it means I'm alone.

Can God lie?

At one point in time I thought that because God is all powerful that the reason he couldn't lie is because even if he tried to, whatever he spoke or thought would simply come into being anyway. I never thought of God as restrained by time or ability.
But when I started looking for positive proof of God's supernatural interaction with our world, I was forced to ask myself: Can God lie?
Repeatedly in the Bible it is reiterated that God is perfect by nature and cannot lie. As I learned more and more about how the universe works, the reality points to a conclusion which is quite contradictory to the biblical account of creation.
In the Bible God makes everything in six literal days starting at evening. (There are believers who trust the day-age theory, but this is not consistent with the original verbiage.) The seventh 'yom' could be debated though.
We now know that new elements are made inside suns and from their death and, with enough time, that's how we get the elements we need for life as we know it.
We know the geological layers took longer than 6000 years to form because radiometric dating confirms volcanic lava flows much older than this. We know that evolution happens, and not just natural selection of existing traits, but the development of novel ones as well. We know that starlight has traveled more than 6,000 light years to reach earth.
As a believer my initial answer to this was that God made it this way. It's such a simple answer for someone of faith, but it raises a glaring contradiction.
If God made it the universe 6,000 years ago, or even 10,000 or a million years ago, he created it in a way which is deceptive and unnecessary. It would have taken an active decision on God's part to make everything with the kind of age we find. It would mean that if Genesis 1 is truth, then God lies.
This was my biggest problem as a believer. If God lies, what does that say about his nature? If Genesis is not absolute truth, how can we trust that all scripture is the word of God, especially considering Jesus is quoted referencing Genesis?
In order to combat this whole idea, young earth creationists have suggested that radioactive decay rates have not always been the same (no evidence for this when it comes to isotopes used for dating,) that evolution only happens on a "micro" level (without the realization that small changes over time become big changes,) and that starlight travels at, or has traveled faster than light speed or completely deny relativity.
This is how I know the Bible is not truth, because either the biblical story is one of a lying God because Genesis is false, or our universe is a deception created by God and both nullify the entire biblical story.

Does God suffer from self loathing?

Proverbs 6

16 There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
17         haughty eyes,
        a lying tongue,
        hands that shed innocent blood,
18         a heart that devises wicked schemes,
        feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19         a false witness who pours out lies
        and a person who stirs up conflict in the   community.

 

There is a lot of contradictions throughout the Bible which lead me from doubting my religion to the truth that is wholly false. This one didn't come to mind until recent studies though. In these verses I can think of two which are easily verified within the text of the Bible and I'm sure I could find more with little effort.

 

Matthew 10

 

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

 

Jesus says here he is creating conflicts even within households, the basis of community. In the word's of God as man (as told by the Bible,) he creates conflict. Is God mad at Jesus (himself?) for saying this or causing it?
As a believer I honestly would explain away such conflicts through a mask of interpretation and faith. Without even mentioning all the conflict God himself (again, as told by the Bible,) orders the tribes of Israel to enter into. If God really hates conflict then Israel should be known for its diplomacy!
The other one that really stands out to me is the "hands that shed innocent blood."
Biblically I think it's pretty easy to say no one is "innocent" since all have "fallen short," but I think most would agree babies would be considered innocent for the purposes of this verse.
Did God forget about the Passover event at this point? According to the Bible, God comes through Egypt and kills all firstborn of man and animals. How can a righteous God justify this massacre? God is omnipotent but he cant change pharaoh's mind without senseless slaughter?
Over and over again I see opportunities for the God of the Bible to be better. In fact, I'm sure a team of writers today could have come up with a more cohesive and compelling story. In all fairness, it's hard to collaborate with authors separated by so much time.
An omnipotent God can do, or will, anything, but does he spend his eternity in self loathing because even he does the things that he hates? Or maybe when he orchestrated the plot to shed the blood of the only "innocent man," he forgave himself as well?
I find it very interesting to be so close to faith that I can really see how absurd it becomes with a little reason. What do I expect from a fairytale though?

If creation story is false, can Bible be true?

The Pope announced that evolution and the big bang are fact and that God is not a wizard.
I think it's pretty interesting I haven't seen much ado about it since the week the story broke in the news. Is that because Catholics in general had already conceded that the creation story was false?
Seriously? Did he even consider the implications of it? It negates biblical faith. Period.
If there is no first man to create original sin, then what is the whole story about? Why would God need to send his son to die for us if we are just the way he created us, through evolution, to be. It means God created us all bound for hell and it wasn't the result of Adam and Eve's disobedience.
That doesn't jive with the Biblical story at all. In fact it's completely opposite (with the exception of a few passages which say God created people for hell, deceived them or gave them bad laws.)
Luke 3:23-38 lists the genealogy from Jesus to God through Adam. Does the Pope consider that false as well?
It's not as if Adam and Eve are confined to the creation account. They are mentioned and referenced throughout the bible.
If other authors of the Bible believed their story to be true, could they possibly have been inspired by God?
This is exactly how I came to a position of unbelief.
Part of me thinks this could spur a division in the catholic church and even an exodus from the faith. This may open the eyes of many that while existence itself is an argument for god, it does not necessitate the God of the Bible.
I have my doubts about that happening though. So much can be justified through interpretation and faith that those that believe can make up the gaps themselves to fabricate a cohesive vision of a Bible that is still "God breathed."
That's why it's so hard to break the circular reasoning of the Bible verifying the Bible through the interpretation of the reader.
For me it took overwhelming evidence to break free of it. The creation story proving false, or at best a lie, started me down a path of discovery of truth, but it was only the beginning. As people become better informed, less will believe in the superstitions of past civilizations, because they will be knowledgeable enough. I could have known all this during high school if I hadn't believed the lies of prominent creationists at the time.
I have to applaud Pope Francis for recognizing truth, even if just partially, in spite of theology. I know how tough that battle is, trying to reconcile reality with faith. The two will always be at odds.
Our imaginations are capable of nearly anything. It brings us to such wondrous heights and such ugly depths. It is egregious by both definitions. 
The Bible and evolution in the end are not compatible, regardless of the theological gymnastics of the imaginative mind. So if one is true, the other is false.

I might be wrong!

I think we live in a wondrous time. We have the world's knowledge at our finger tips. The internet has become the new Alexandrian library and Google is an excellent librarian. Anything I can think of can be researched with a few clicks. In my view, education is free. I can learn anything.
Coming from faith, I have had many doubts from every side. Obviously I had doubts which lead me from faith through evidence, but even now I have doubts sometimes that I could be wrong.
When everything I believed turned out to be false, I have to admit that I could be wrong now.
I do not have the time, knowledge or equipment to test every discipline I have attempted to learn in order to have a better grasp on reality. That's why I look to information that has been confirmed by multiple sources, independently, by people who have the resources to do so. Many Christians would say I am trusting fallible men over an infallible book, or God, but what I am trusting is that the people doing this research would love to be the one that makes that crucial discovery that would change our understanding of the universe.
While I have more than sufficient evidence to discount the biblical story, I do not know the answers to how the universe began or how life started.
The truth is there are possibilities we have not yet dreamt of which could be the real answers to these questions. I read an interesting article recently that postulated entropy might have been the driving factor behind abiogenesis. The second law of thermodynamics may be the most commonly used argument against evolution by Christians. How ironic would it be if it was actually the driving force of abiogenesis?
This is not proven though. It's speculation and the possibilities are endless. It could have been the work of a god that started the universe and life, but this is just speculative. If there's anything I have learned on this journey through religious transition, it's to look to the evidence first and whatever the evidence doesn't explain, feel free to imagine whatever you like. If someone wants to believe the universe was brought into existence through the vomit of an epic fly, I couldn't refute it, but if I asked for evidence, they couldn't prove it. I would however congratulate them for their creative views.
I only have a problem with someone's beliefs when they use them as a weapon to impede the happiness of others.
It's more than okay to think you might be wrong. It's how we make discoveries when we thought we had it all figured out. If your desire is for reality, use the tools you have to find it.