You seem to be stuck on the idea that the part of the human brain that makes us what we are is so special that it could never have appeared ever anywhere else under any other circumstances, and yet you refuse to say why that is. There's no reason to assume our brain or something equivalent to it wouldn't have developed under a host of different circumstances.

Here, let me give you an example: Fish and whales. Both have evolved fins and strealined bodies designed for living under water. Both evolved these traits completely seperately and at completely different times. Whales were originally land-dwelling animals related to hippos. They gradually moved back into the water and evolved organs and body parts in order to live there. And remarkably, they look very similar to fish, despite not being fish at all. Even more remarkably, as similar as they are, they still are different, with blowholes instead of gills, and horizontal tail fins instead of vertical tailfins, to name a few differences. This shows that there isn't only one correct answer to evolution, and that the same evolutionary paths can be reached from completely different points.

Going back to my point, if the dinosaurs had survived for another 60 million years, there's no reason to say flat out they couldn't have developed intelligence just like mammals eventually did(like I said previously, there already were dinosaurs with remarkably developed and still developing brains when they were wiped out), and there's no reason to say mammals couldn't have eventually developed intelligence even with the dinosaurs around. Unless you're capable of predicting exactly how evolution will turn out(and you aren't), you cannot dictate terms on how life would or would not have evolved under differerent circumstances, or even under the same circumestances.

And yeah, an atmosphere is probably needed for advanced life as we know it, but most of the planets in our solar system have atmospheres, and even some of the moons. There's nothing special about an atmosphere, and there's no reason to suggest our atmosphere is the only exactly combination of gases that could support intelligent life, or even that you need any of those gases in the first place. You need to start explaining WHY you think all these unrelated circumstances are absolutely required for intelligence, instead of just saying they are because they are. Your snide remark about me using online encyclopedias, which I do not, is ironically some good advice that you should take yourself. Use facts to support your arguments, instead of your own unsupported convictions. If you're going to make a claim, especially a controversial and radical one, use a fact to back it up.