JCalvin

David M. Your observations appear to be spot on and appear to be a fairly direct refutation of Dawkins' whole premise - whether you are aware of it or not! You can read a more formal refutation from Keith Ward here: http://www.amazon.com/Why-There-Almost-Certainly-God-ebook/dp/B004UA4CG4/ref=la_B001H6Q88E_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388453628&sr=1-3 It is a more formal rebuttal to Dawkins' book. Basically, he calls out Dawkins for taking a very narrow materialist approach to the issue - an approach, as it turns out, that is taken by a minority of philosophers, since it fails to account for phenomenon like consciousness and individual volition. His assertion is that God is not only possible, but indeed probable.

Great point to the "professional teabagger". Those remarks certainly made an unseemly comparison of humans to mindlessly growing bacteria. I would only add one thing: his analysis - along with most analysis from these environmentalists and Malthusian resource-limited acolytes - is entirely static! It assumes people are nothing more than resource hogging drains on society and not additional resources that create more wealth. Very arrogant, when you think about it. When the planet was "burdened" with a mere 100,000 people, I doubt very much they were living the high life, but barely in survival mode.

Mongolian throat chanting? Do you have any links to that ?