What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[snowtracks]

The Cambrian explosion is scientific evidence for God.

Um. No. Even if the Cambrian explosion disproved evolution (which it doesn't), it has ZERO bearing on atheism or religion. To assert that therefore creationism, and your particular CHRISTIAN  creationism at that must be true is a ridiculous false dichotomy. But I guess it has to be since you don't have anything to support your 'theory', so the only way of it gaining any kind of validity in your mind is disproving evolution....But it doesn't work like that. If evolution were false, creationism could still be false.

Not to mention....WHICH god? And how do you come to that conclusion? -_-

 It’s a matter of comparing the naturalistic model to the creation model and choosing the one that best fits the observable data from all the sciences. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has a policy statement that implicitly and strictly adheres to a materialistic understanding of the nature of science. So scientists accepted a self-imposed limitation to the hypothesis they are willing to accept. Hence, all their conclusion must adder to the principle of methodological materialism including origin of the universe, and life or phenomena such as human consciousness. To publish or secure grants that have the AAAS policy or similar (Nature, Nova, Smithsonian, public and most private universities, etc), the researchers must exclude by policy any creation model evidence. Nothing wrong with AAAS institutions setting rules for their members (policy statement, not a conspiracy); however, the problem is that they have excluded conclusion before the research even begins (as stated by Richard Lewontin American evolutionary biologist ‘…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door‘)*; and that most readers don’t know of this a priori restrictive policy. Some researcher even are convinced of the creation model, but will of course interpret the finding naturalistically. Therefore, most of the ‘science’ this board’s posters are so enameled with is really pre-loaded ’science’. In the case of evolution, big gapping holes in the theory is explained by an appeal to future discoveries, but real science is based on what is known not what is not known.
　
* https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin