"Wally" wrote in message
...
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?

Ask yourself the questions.



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?


Nothing! I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific
viewpoint. I'm quite happy to consider alternative explanations. Do you
have an alternative to offer? I'd really like to hear it!!




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.

You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you?

I bet that you find it much easier to criticise than to formulate a real
opinion.

If you want to disagree with me, then you should have the balls to put
forward your own beliefs.



Regards


Donal
--