Donal wrote:

If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God"
becomes an inescapable conclusion.

Why does it become an inescapable conclusion?


The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in
the timeframes that are available. Scientists have argued that
intense periods of radiation have resulted in periods of
"accelerated" mutation. However, we have now had the opportunity to
see the results of increased radiation .... and it certainly does not
result in rapid advancement of our species.

Are the types of radiation whose effects we have studied the same as the
type that they suggest caused mutations in the past?


Your thumb could not have "evolved" in the history of the planet.

Fascinating.


I've considered all the available options.

What makes you think that the real explanation has been covered by any one
of the available options?


Only one makes sense.

The god hypothesis might be a good way of attempting to explain how the
universe came about, but without evidence to show that god actually exists,
it remains a hypothesis. I could hypothesise that it was made by
hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings, but people that don't choose to
support my hypothesis will have a hard time believing me if I don't show
them some evidence. I don't see why the god hypothesis should be treated any
differently.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk