Posted: Jun 25, 2019 11:30 am
Jayjay4547 wrote:What is observable is the creation:
You apparently lack the foggiest clue as to what 'observable' entails. Tell me how to observe 'creation' without intent. Creativity is my opinion of what I observe, and is not what I observe. Learn what an opinion consists of, JJ.
Jayjay4547 wrote: the observed current functionality of life forms, compared with observed lack of those functionalities 3 billion years ago.
Who even defines functionality? We do! The biosphere started with zero functionality, so even asexual reproduction computes to an infinite amount more functionality than zero. But be careful, JJ. Functionality is defined in terms of intent or purpose. As in, "functions to the intended purpose", an engineering metaphor you may actually understand. That means you're just packing in some more creationism. That's not science or engineering, of course, but just more religous nuttery.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Like, bones and brains. “Intent” is a conjecture about something behind the observable.
No, JJ. It's something observable in the work of human designers, artists, engineers and chefs. Your conjecture about the intent is precisely what is not observable in the 'biosphere". You're conjecturing a divine intelligence, which is bog-standard religious nuttery.