StarMan

It is an Atheist Forum, where arrogance and condescension rule. Opinions and facts presented which are contrary to the diktats of Swansont are summarily deleted, with malice. He has a faint orgasm every time he bans someone who doesn't speak and write in accordance with his own views. This is my final post. I am self-banning, denying Mister Petty Atheist the chance to meaningfully ban me.

Argue with Richard Dawkins, not me. Dawkins is the one who said all life forms are simply "copy me" replicators. He didn't add quantum physics, chemistry, biology, biotechnology, etc. etc. to his evolutionary claim. On the subject of intellectualism, on which you put such emphasis, note your own poor grammar: "...they put it to extremity (sic) where sexual partners are testing them self (sic)…"

What does Darwinism care about quality, in the sense you intend? There are Pakistani families who breed within their own families, producing severely retarded children who go on to continue the practice. Muslims intend to take over the world and are far outpacing atheists/agnostics in this regard. IF atheism is so very rational, so very scientific and good and true, then why do its adherents abandon atheism more than Catholics or Baptists or Lutherans or Mormons or Muslims do? (See graph below) Then there is your comment: One can have sex every day, with different women, and have almost as many children as days of life, and then pay no attention to their growing up, development, and teach nothing.. It reminds me of Isaac Asimov, who so neglected his own son that his son became a pedophile, arrested a few years ago in California with thousands of illegal child porn images on his computer. Lovely legacy for the consummately arrogant, hateful Isaac Asimov, who was so ignorant that he never flew on commercial aircraft, out of fear.

It doesn't take much reflection on the common explanation of formation of fossil fuels, from coal, to crude oil, to natural gas, to find that it doesn't make any sense at all. In fact, it's anti-science. 1. Where in the world is fossil fuel formation currently underway today? Answer: nowhere. 2. Why didn't microorganisms break down the plant and animal matter that supposedly was compressed to form coal, and crude oil, and natural gas? They were around then. 3. How could such a profound volume of organic matter accumulate in so many different locations around the world, such that they are now under thousands of feet of ocean, and soil, and rock? 4. How elegant that rock formations contained natural gas, and crude oil under very high pressure, for such long periods of time? Gas station underground tanks leak with extreme regularity. But oilfields have been producing enormous quantities of crude oil for many decades. 5. The elegance of atomic structure and chemical reactions and their reversibility and efficiency, the vast interconnectedness of virtually all things, the beauty of our senses and our discoveries and our lives and loves, the tutorial method by which humans have acquired knowledge for thousands of years, all of these and many more factors besides didn't just assert themselves, from the fluctuation of a quantum vacuum. Sorry. Ponder these and other questions every time you fill your automobile gas tank with gasoline, and you watch tens of thousands of other vehicles plying the roadways worldwide, and the airspace, overhead, and the oceans, rivers and lakes around the world, as they have done for over 100 years now. That is one heck of a lot of fossil fuel. I posed these issues to a geologist specializing in oilfield work, who lives in Canada. He agreed with me and stated that there is considerable debate over how all this stuff was actually formed. We really don't have a clue. But here is one scientific fact: We really don't HAVE to have "a theory," particularly when it doesn't hold water. It is sufficient to simply say, "We don't know," and let it go at that. Darwinists have yet to learn this. They HAVE to have something to cling to, no matter how useless it might be.

Richard Dawkins explains "the purpose of life is spreading copy me programs." Oops! Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Schermer, Daniel Dennett, and Bill Nye The Science Guy together have fewer children than Osama Bin Laden.