Which furthers my point

What???

I don't think living a single year in the US qualifies one to judge all Americans. Where exactly did you live, and what was the reason for living there?

I'm more qualified to make a judgement of both parties than you are.

Not that's it's relevant, but I travelled all over the country, following

roughly in the footsteps of Jack Kerouc, meaning I spent time in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Denver and Los Angeles as well as short spells in various other towns and cities.

And the UK is behind us every step of the way....no?

Fair point, but only because of the stronghold that the USA has got on world politics.

And what is the distinction between 'butchering a language' and creating a new dialect?

The distinction is that the 'dialect' is now more widespread than the original language, not just in the USA but also in the various countries around the world that now learn American English.

Unfortunately I don't know enough Englishmen to make any kind of comparison. The United States does not have a monopoly on Nationalism.

Fortunately I do, I also lived a year in the States, and about a third of the people in my accommodation are American. I can tell you that blind patriotism is far more prevalent in the USA that in England. However, since I cannot provide any evidence for this other than my own experience; you, of course, maintain the right not to believe me on this point.

P.S Could you please tell me how to make text bold.

It's a broad question, and 'better' is a subjective term which can be defined in many ways.

However, the USA is the cause of a lot a death and conflict in the world today, they butcher the English language, and most of the population are blind patriots, for whom any questioning of the greatness of their own country is blasphemy. That is why every in the world hates you.

'Darwin disproved his own theory' - how? when?

What you're describing is a theory known as 'irreducible complexity', and, as of yet, no one has managed has provided a an irrefutable example of it.

While it's true that the fact that stupid people can comprehend less makes them oblivious, not ignorant, I do still believe that most stupid people are ignorant.

As a reasonably intelligent person who grew up in a family which wasn't remotely interested in academia or things of an (and I dislike using this word) intellectual nature, I started to notice, from a young age, that the people around me had an inherent dislike and disregard for all things 'clever'.

I think it's a fair assumption that just about everybody using this site has had many experiences of this nature.

Now I know it would be unscientific to extrapolate what I noticed about the people immediately around me and apply it to the population as a whole. Having now experienced more of society and the media, I believe this idea holds true as a general trend in society, and I think it is a dangerous, overtolerated and perennial problem.

Let's be honest, one of the main reasons for this sort of attitude is jealosy, it's the reason smart kids get bullied in school, it's often the reason intelligent people get accused of being smarmy or condescending (not always, sometimes they are).

It's far easier for a person to remain dogmatic about their ill-informed opinion than to actually do some research. This is why people will say emphatically that "Muslims are terrorists" or "wrap up warm or you'll catch a cold", or my favourite: "so you're telling me that we all used to be monkeys?". Just because something appears counter-intuitive at first glance doesn't make it untrue.

Humans are animals, and so function on the basis of primal drives.

These drives include, among others: survival instincts, libido, hunger, thirst, the desire to reproduce (I believe this is distinct from libido), and the desire to attain power.

It's my belief that all human behaviour can be explained by these instincts. I acknowledge that a single exception would disprove my theory entirely, so I challenge you to come up with one. :)

Your post covers a huge amount of subject matter, but I'll do my best to respond to every point.

Your very first sentence is actually completely wrong if directed at a scientific atheist.

The Earth doesn't sustain life by chance, it does so because of a mathematical inevitability.

The universe is vast, at least 13 billion lightyears across. So of all the entities in the universe, at least one of them is bound to have accommodating conditions for life. In fact, if like some people, you accept the universe to be infinite, then there would be infinite planets with life on them.

Every single one of your points about complex life can be explained by evolution.

You make this point: But life does appear here, incredibly, and this life happens to be the right sort of life for the environment on earth.

As a person who seems to have some knowledge of science, surely you understand the main principle of evolution- that life has adapted, over thousands of years to FIT its environment.

I hope, as an intelligent person, you don't need me to explain to you how this is possible, but I'd happy to do so if you do.

Here you wrote: Okay, I'm going to jump here and re-build to that point. Let's start small and get bigger. Atoms. The fact that they exist is something that requires God. But that's not my argument, as it would simply end in you saying "I don't believe you." as neither of us can provide any evidence stretching that far back.

And then proceeded to write:

Here's a thing: All objects in motion will remain in motion and all objects at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon them. All atoms, and all matter is in constant motion. Who or what started that motion?

Can't you see that you went ahead and wrote what you had just said you wouldn't?

On your point about atoms existing and reacting in correct places: hundreds of different compounds exist in all environments, its only logical that some of these compounds will be useful, there are also plenty of useless and even harmfuls substances.

Water is a remarkable liquid, and that's precisely what makes this planet hospitable to life. It also has relatively high heat capacity, meaning it can store quite and lot of heat. But you seem to imply that a change in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere magically 'activates' heat loss or gain from water, as if this is different to any other liquid. Heat always travels from a hot area to a cooler one, it's basic thermodynamics, and it's nothing unusual.

If you'll allow me to be slightly pedantic, not all prokaryotes have flagella- but this is only a minor point.

Your knowledge of photosynthesis is impressive by the way (A level biologist I'm guessing). However all of the intricate systems your describing came about through evolution.

One of the things worth knowing about evolution is that it doesn't always find a perfect solution, but that it finds the first solution that works. Now you'd think that, if there was a Creator, chlorophyll would be black, not green (it would absorb more light), but it isn't, because it was brought about through evolution.

I hope that, as someone with a logical and critical mind, you'll realise that the beautiful and complex world we live in is the result over thousands of years of natural selection, and also realise the genius and elegance of Darwin's theory.

It's as Douglas Adams said: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I agree that there are certain people for whom belief in a deity is a necessary comfort. However, there are others, like myself, who can handle a harsh truth and who don't need God.

Your argument seems to be that people should believe in God because that belief is a comfort. My question to you is - Is it better to believe in something because it is comforting or because it is the truth?

It would be a great comfort to me to believe that civilians aren't dying in Iraq, but I'm not prepared to believe it simply on that premise.

As for your point about the Bible, the same could be said of any holy book, and they cannot all be right.

You asked the question - Who would have honestly bothered to come up with all that stuff?

Well, surely you know that the Bible was written over hundreds of years, with contributions from a huge amount of people, countless revisions and alterations.

I feel compelled to say something in response to your last sentence. It's pointless and very patronising, and will only serve to repel people from the christian faith.