then why use a system that would give the appearance as if humans were not an innevitable outcome?

You're being very defensive without actually defending against the main point being made. Our understanding of evolution leads us to conclude that humans were not an innevitable outcome of the process. So how could a person also believe in a god that had the specific intention of creating humans?

the problem with that argument is why would a 'benevolant' being use a method that, after study, would APPEAR as if humans were not an innevitable outcome. Seems very close to the idea of a god 'planting fossils' to test our faith.

Evolution is a process where there is no end result, no specific organism that would definitely arise. The mechanisms involved simply mean that organisms capable of adapting and surviving would proliferate. This does not have the innevitable outcome of human life. So there is an issue with believing in the Abrahamic god, where it is taught this being had the specific intention of creating human life. Why would they use a method where human life were not guaranteed?

There is a very specific conflict in believing in the Abrahamic god who is taught as having a specific intention in creating human life. Whilst also understanding evolution and why human life was not an innevitable outcome of the process. Therefore begging the question, if a god who had the specific interest in bringing about humans existed, why would they use a process whereby human life was not guaranteed?

A non-personal or deistic god does not generate this problem. Nor does the idea of a god who was interested not specifically in human life, but the development of any intelligent life.

There is a very specific conflict with believing that this god would be concerned with human life and yet use a process where their existence could not be guaranteed.

Also, no, we're not talking about some abstract idea of what "evolution" is. We're fully aware of the mechanisms involved and why this makes human life not an innevitable aspect of it. Even if a god had set up the universe in such a way that it would progress down one specific path. It would still have the appearance of a naturalistic universe where human life was not specifically intended.

Because natural selection is not the simplest approach, it would be far simpler for an all powerful being to simply "will" life, specifically human life, into existence. Natural selection is a long winded process with no specific end result, therefore human life could not be guaranteed nor does it seem an innevitable thing. This is a problem for Abrahamic religions which assert their god has a specific interest in human life.

By personal god I was referring to a deity that has a specific interest in humans, as mentioned in the Abrahamic religions. The problem with believing in both is that our understanding of evolution indicates human life was not an "innevitable" outcome of the process, this however conflicts the idea that a personal god has specific intentions to bring about human life.

That is of course possible, however the problem is that the process of evolution gives the impression that humans were in no way "innevitable." The god of the Abrahamic religions is supposed to be a benevolant being, it would beg the question why would they use a method that could fool humans into thinking there was no god in the first place.

you do not consider it a conflict to believe that a god has the specific intention of human life coming to be. Yet also believing it arose through evolution where human life was not an innevitable outcome?