Which is why I don't bother to argue about such things. The facts are there; but we tend to perceive them in accordance with our own beliefs, experiences, knowledge, motivations, etc. That's why I said it's obvious, at least to ME. Various persons will perceive the same set of data quite differently. One person sees the beauty which surrounds us, and perceives it as evidence of a divine purpose; another sees it as the inevitable result of evolution and random factors.

This is further assuming we can agree on the facts themselves, and so much of Earth's history is just not there. Fossil evidence is so scant, considering the immense plethora of life which has existed over billions of years, that only a student of such things can present the facts accurately; or his/her version of the facts; and only another such student can attack them. Experts still disagree to some extent on the reasons for the disappearance of the dinosaurs, and I do know quite a bit about this. This is only one tiny fraction of the history of life on Earth.

To me, all this is perhaps interesting, but not something which can be meaningfully argued with a view to discerning the truth. I would prefer, if there is to be argument; to argue certain facts themselves, to the extent that we have reliable data. I don't think we could even agree on the facts, much less agree on any inferences to be drawn from those facts.

And this is from someone who likes to argue.

Tarak