Evidence for God from Science

Whether or not you agree with "Evolution", what would be the top three evidences that you see?

To be clear in defining Evolution, I suppose I'd define such as all life sharing a common ancestor at some point in the distant past, from which all life on Earth descended from, evolving through modifications via a purely mechanical process.

Here are perhaps my top three evidences:

1. Tree of life (e.g., nested hierarchies, phylogenetic trees)
2. Shared DNA segments (e.g., endogenous retroviruses)
3. Cruelty designed in nature

"Evidences" is a verb.

Audie wrote:"Evidences" is a verb.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:"Evidences" is a verb.

audie-medal.jpg

Audie -- Congratulations on your Medal.

How can "evidences" be a verb? Isn't it a plural noun, evidenced* by the "s" at the end?



*Evidenced is a verb.

I evidence
Thou evidencest
He evidenceth
We evidenced
Ye have evidenced
They shall have evidenced.

I'm sure that's what we learnt at school. No idea what it means...

hughfarey wrote:I evidence
Thou evidencest
He evidenceth
We evidenced
Ye have evidenced
They shall have evidenced.

I'm sure that's what we learnt at school. No idea what it means...

WHAT kind of school did you go to??

RickD wrote:How can "evidences" be a verb? Isn't it a plural noun, evidenced* by the "s" at the end?



*Evidenced is a verb.

So is "evidences". "Evidence" is like gasoline; one gasoline, two gasolines.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:How can "evidences" be a verb? Isn't it a plural noun, evidenced* by the "s" at the end?



*Evidenced is a verb.

So is "evidences". "Evidence" is like gasoline; one gasoline, two gasolines.

To Kurieuo it is. We need to go slow with him Audie.

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:I evidence
Thou evidencest
He evidenceth
We evidenced
Ye have evidenced
They shall have evidenced.

I'm sure that's what we learnt at school. No idea what it means...

WHAT kind of school did you go to??

Hugh, I might be starting to understand why you are the way you are...

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:How can "evidences" be a verb? Isn't it a plural noun, evidenced* by the "s" at the end?



*Evidenced is a verb.

So is "evidences". "Evidence" is like gasoline; one gasoline, two gasolines.

To Kurieuo it is. We need to go slow with him Audie.

You guys are just looking foolish.

This might be enlightening to some, but since no one is caring for the topic (which breaks my heart), "evidences" can be used as a mass noun. Just because "evidences" is a verb (hope you liked your gold medal Audie!), doesn't mean it isn't also usable as a noun, despite whatever English teacher may have taught you to the contrary Audie.

Language is constructed by society, not the other way around even if it nonetheless informs. Shakespeare even used "evidences" as a mass noun. So such a use goes back some time in English. Perhaps in Hong Kong they're trying too hard at being English in order to try distance themselves from their Chinese heritage?


Now, back to the topic please. I don't know why giving 3 top evidences for Evolution is so hard. It was meant to be a easy going thread for those who do believe we came about through evolutionary processes to actually state what three evidences they find quite convincing. Surely there's at least three top pieces of evidence you can run off Audie that you find rather convincing, moi?

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:How can "evidences" be a verb? Isn't it a plural noun, evidenced* by the "s" at the end?



*Evidenced is a verb.

So is "evidences". "Evidence" is like gasoline; one gasoline, two gasolines.

To Kurieuo it is. We need to go slow with him Audie.

You guys are just looking foolish.

This might be enlightening to some, but since no one is caring for the topic (which breaks my heart), "evidences" can be used as a mass noun. Just because "evidences" is a verb (hope you liked your gold medal Audie!), doesn't mean it isn't also usable as a noun, despite whatever English teacher may have taught you to the contrary Audie.

Language is constructed by society, not the other way around even if it nonetheless informs. Shakespeare even used "evidences" as a mass noun. So such a use goes back some time in English. Perhaps in Hong Kong they're trying too hard at being English in order to try distance themselves from their Chinese heritage?


Now, back to the topic please. I don't know why giving 3 top evidences for Evolution is so hard. It was meant to be a easy going thread for those who do believe we came about through evolutionary processes to actually state what three evidences they find quite convincing. Surely there's at least three top pieces of evidence you can run off Audie that you find rather convincing, moi?

Of course society chooses to construct or deconstruct languages. Americans say
"awesome" instead of "thank you". They eat "epic" French fries.

For a thorough treatment of your misuse, http://english.stackexchange.com/questi ... mericanism.

Audie, your source doesn't say anything much, but you seem to think I care.
If I'm in line with Shakespeare then bite me.

It's simply avoidance from a question you don't wish to answer.

I don't think I would include natural cruelty as an evidence for evolution; it's too anthropomorphic.
But I would add the fossil record, and modern experiments with breeding.

These were what I consider strong evidence and together form a cumulative case I feel is quite strong and needs a good response to.

Reading Darwin, he was troubled to the cruelty he saw in the natural order. He had issues reconciling God to such. While not necessarily a scientific or biological reason, it is nonetheless suggestive evidence of a certain kind that is difficult to explain theologically.

Consider that, my first line of evidence, while supportive of evolution is also supportive of a Creator who is just creating life according to fit into different kingdoms and/or environments. Therefore, tree of life equally fits in with Designer, such is really what we'd expect of both ideas -- animals fit for their environments.

Now, throw in something like endogenous retroviruses. Well, if an assumed ancestor has an endogenous retrovirus (like a scar in their DNA that gets passed onto offspring), then we'd expect see in its offspring. Thus, shared endogenous retroviruses between humans and chimps adds weight that we share in same "parents" who would be our common ancestor.

If true, this now rules out God creating species always brand new from scratch, rather God in the very least is making use of pre-existing lifeforms when creating new species -- or if no God, then new lifeforms are inherited such traits through a mechanic process like evolution. These are the only two options that I see.

So then leads us to evidence #3 in the form of an argument. If God is good, then why do we see much cruelty in nature? Indeed, it seems hard to reconcile wasps laying eggs that hatch in other life, carnivorous activity, preying mantises devouring each other and the like. While nature is very beautiful, it can also be very cold and cruel -- and this all seems to be by design.

So combined together, I feel these three arguments create a rather powerful argument for Evolution as a mechanical process that God, if God exists, isn't necessarily hands on in.