Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

Actually, I didn't mention you're beliefs at all. As I said about reading for comprehension...

You're argument from incredulity not withstanding, there are billions of people who find other (or no) religions more compelling than yours. I'm guessing, though I won't speak for them, that they see plenty of unreasonableness or inconsistency in those fundamentals.

As far as the fundamentals of the christer cult, I was raised in a christer home and taught christer ideology. I've read the buy-bull, more than once. I found none of it compelling. Much like your silly ideas. (<---- pay attention to that bit, you know, for the comprehension).

Again, I did  not ask anyone here to accept Christianity. What I HAVE done is:
(1) Argued for the insufficiency of reductionistic Natural Selection to explain the present order. 
(2) In passing, I have mentioned my Christian beliefs and challenged observers to identify anything unreasonable there. I haven't seen anyone on this thread convincingly rise to that challenge.

This is the main problem in a nutshell. You have this grand explanation which is predicated on reductionistic explanations being insufficient. You even made a brief stab at why you think so in your OP. However, at the end of the day, you can only demonstrate the insufficiency of known reductionistic explanations. Which means by dismissing reductionistic explanations as a whole, you are also dismissing reductionistic explanations which are currently unknown. This is a textbook appeal to ignorance as you are basing your dismissal on our being ignorant and unaware of good reductionistic explanations for these things, by focusing on a subset of those explanations, namely ones that are known, and more precisely that are known to you. This makes your grand edifice justified as the answer to a non sequitur. Your lack of a sound argument against atheistic explanations, because the argument you've presented is invalid, makes your grand explanation begging for a more substantive answer than, "This would be neat if it were the case."

As to rocks being partially conscious, once you empty out the set of qualities a paradigm case of consciousness possesses, self-awareness, ability to reason, experience, memory, and so forth, it becomes clear that you're just applying the word consciousness to things regardless of whether they display the traits and qualities of consciousness. You want to inherit the larger set of traits where you have evidence, and assume a minimum supposed set where the traits are absent. This is using the word consciousness in different cases within the same argument as if they referred to the same thing, the same qualities, and the same processes when they clearly do not refer to the same phenomenon. This is basic equivocation. Consciousness means one thing when applied to a human, and something else when applied to a rock or a potato, or to undifferentiated matter. This is the fallacy that grounds most panpsychism: the problem that the word and concept of consciousness is being used inconsistently, and therefore much of the claims are simply unsound. Whatever it is that I am doing is definitely not the same thing that the rock is doing. The only way around this is to assert it without evidence, that the rock and I share something even if you have no evidence for the claim that we do.