Well, our standards may vary, but when I talk about someone online and that someone is accessible in some way or another, I'll use a channel that is known and available to me to notify them. I won't rely on chance that the person may check my work. That is quite needy and, frankly, also vain in my book. What you consider as gratuitous slam was just me pointing out that our worldviews inform the way in which we behave. No judgment, merely a simple observation with a bit of deduction.
With that out of the way, you can observe self-organization in universe for instance in the way gravity organizes mass which is in turn inextricably tied to gravity. Or how water "seeks its own level" as described by Pascal's law. The same self-organization can be observed in the case of e.g. Great Oxygenation Event, for which there is plenty of geological evidence. And so on and so forth.
When I say that intelligence is inconsequential when considering design, I mean exactly that. Unless we find a "Made by God" label on things in universe your analogy with Rosetta stone is moot. In case of Rosetta stone there is a clearly visible intent, the semantic info is secondary (when first examples of cuneiform were discovered, no one understood the script, but the tablets definitely looked like intentionally created human artifacts, which they are). And as I elaborated elsewhere, mass, energy, and information are demonstrably equivalent. So, you have information in universe, what is missing, however, is any semblance of clear-cut intent -- the system can be (correctly!) described without it. And then you have e.g. Voynich manuscript, which is clearly intentional, but in the end may turn out as complete bogus (i.e. no intelligence). Thus, while universe is obviously intelligent, it is quite certainly not designed. Otherwise, humans must be more skillful creators than the one responsible for “intelligent design” of universe.
As for God -- well, I define God as ground of being, too. Do you agree with my definition? I would dare to say that that is not the case. Therefore I asked for clear definitions (as far as language permits it), because those nebulous terms like God, ground of being, or ontological basis (if left at that) simply don't cut it.
