Thread: So, I think Christians are stupid.

You know Ne-yo, I accidentally read some of what the GOD-hating atheists wrote and, well, I gotta admit that I sorta think we're getting pwned here on both the "Abiogenesis" thing and the GOD being all loving thing.

Do you think we should change the subject back to The Generalized Quantum Theory of Relativistic String Evolution? There's no way they'll be able to back up that.

Originally Posted by Philsopherstone

You know Ne-yo, I accidentally read some of what the GOD-hating atheists wrote and, well, I gotta admit that I sorta think we're getting pwned here on both the "Abiogenesis" thing and the GOD being all loving thing.

Do you think we should change the subject back to The Generalized Quantum Theory of Relativistic String Evolution? There's no way they'll be able to back up that.

Yea, they've been owning you for some time now dude. I've been thinking, I don't think you're up for this task. So unfortunately, We're gonna have to let you go. Don't take it personal. oh and btw... don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Now that we got the losers out of the way, lets continue.

Originally Posted by Mario92

So despite the overwhelming evidence, the ninety-something genetic similarity with chimpanzees, and basic common sense, you continue to cling to your creator-god...which has no evidence. Again, the only thing I can see you using here is the argument from incredulity. It is not a valid argument. Try again.

Overwhelming evidence of genetic similarities? We've tackled this one an put it to rest over 3 years ago. But, here we are again and you atheist cling on to the same old stuff. First of all, humans do not share a genome sequence with Chimps that's ninety something percent anything. Don't even put a fallacious statement in here like that for others to read thinking you're right when you are clearly wrong. However, don't worry because I'm going to correct you.

First of all, we have never conducted a whole genome comparison between Chimps and Humans as only certain regions are selected for analysis while other regions are omitted and I believe it's far past time that one is done.
Secondly, Chimpanzee's DNA has never been anywhere near fully sequenced so that the proper comparison is made.
Number 3, our DNA with Chimps and Apes should have more of a similarity because we are both mammals with similar shapes. This actually supports the concept of a common designer.
Number 4, DNA coding signifies structures and biochemical molecules, meaning, it should be highly expected that the most akin creatures in structure to have the most analogous DNA. Also supporting a common designer. We do not expect to see much similarities with DNA sequence via humans vs reptiles, as it should be.

Now back to this ninety something genetic similarity lie that you tossed in so conveniently. There was a time back in the 90's when the genome sequence was at 98 to 99% identical to our own under research. However, further research a few years thereafter dropped to 92%. I believe this was in 2003. In 2005 additional analysis were conducted as several studies were performed where targeted regions of the genomes were compared and overall similarity estimates as low as 86% were obtained. Now, keep in mind, right now in 2011 a completely unbiased whole genome comparison between chimp and human has yet to be done. But it's very obvious the more research we conduct the more we realize how dissimilar we really are.
Source - Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions/adsabs.harvard.edu

In short, do not go around lying to people telling them that we have a ninety something genetic similarity between humans and chimps. Educate yourself first and then speak on it. We share a similarity of 50% of our DNA with bananas but does that make us half bananas? Think about it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Organic Molecules Found Outside our Solar System
mad star - The Development of Life on Earth
The Fiery Origins of Life on Primordial Earth

I have a million of these, and I'm sure I could easily dig up some official, peer-reviewed research papers. We may not be able to directly examine the conditions of primordial earth, but we can use what we know to make an extremely educated guess. It could still be wrong, but it is rather unlikely.

You could have a quattuordecillion of stories regarding "idea's" of what early earth was like. It doesn't matter because in the end it's just an idea, a thought which isn't backed up by any scientific or geological evidence. So post all the URL's you want it doesn't change this fact. I have a few idea's of my own regarding what the year 2067 will be like. Even your very own Stanley Miller stated that we have never observed nor do we have any geological evidence stating that such conditions actually existed. I'll put this up again because you've obviously missed it.

Originally Posted by "Dr. Stanley Miller OOL Researcher"

"There is no geological evidence for the physical setting of the origin of life because there are no unmetamorphosed rocks from that period".
Source - Astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov

Originally Posted by Mario92

That's a terrible analogy. That's tantamount to a bunch of random molecules coming together to form a fully-functioning human being overnight. We know that it doesn't happen. Imagine, instead, a basic electric circuit, already connected to a power source and light bulb. Now imagine that there is one loose wire. A gust of wind comes along and bumps the wire, causing the circuit to complete and the bulb to light. This is much closer to abiogenesis.

Your analogy isn't anywhere near close to abiogenesis. Here I'll modify it.

Imagine a basic electric circuit not connected to anything. Imagine, no power source. Now imagine a bulb somewhere in the same vicinity. Imagine a loose wire somewhere nearby also. A gust of wind comes along and bumps everything while carrying along power from who knows where. Causing the electric circuit to obtain power connecting the looser wire to the bulb and connecting the bulb to the new power source. Thats Abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by Mario92

The entire fucking theory of evolution and everything we know of genomics.

You can't have an extraordinarily good idea of an event if you have absolutely no foundation to support the idea of that event. There is no way you can have a good idea regarding abiogenesis based off evolution because first and foremost, natural selection doesn't start until life starts. You need a foundation that is just as solid. You do not have that.

Remember,“theory” in science means the explanation for how something has happened, or why it is the way it is. It is NOT synonymous with “hypothesis” or “best guess.”~Cynthinia Yockey

Originally Posted by Mario92

Common sense, carbon/phosphorous/uranium/etc. dating, the evidence we have that you say we don't, the fact that alternatives are absolutely ridiculous...
At any rate, see my next point.

I already told you, several times now, that I don't believe abiogenesis happened. I have simply stated that it is the most plausible known possibility.

You're obviously arguing with me over abiogenesis for a reason. You believe something about it or else you wouldn't be here throwing in URL's trying to support the validity of it, now would you?

Originally Posted by Mario92

This sounds like absolute bullshit to me. Mind showing me these "mathematicians"?

Sure

Originally Posted by Dr. Hubert Yockey Physcisit Cambridge University

Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability".
Source -
Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257.

Mathematician Fred Hoyle - Hoyle calculated the probability of forming just a single protein consisting of a chain of 300 amino acids is (1/20)300 or 1*2^10390.

Mathematician Emil Borel - (Borel's Law of Probability) any odds beyond 1*10^50, have a zero probability of ever happening. "Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur."

Francis Crick - Biology Nobel Peace Prize Winner. "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".
Source - Francis Crick, Life Itself -- Its Origin and Nature, Futura, 1982.

Dr. Leslie Orgel OOL Researcher -"The explanation of this is simple: noncovalent interactions between small molecules in aqueous solution are generally too weak to permit large and regiospecific catalytic accelerations. To postulate one fortuitously catalyzed reaction, perhaps catalyzed by a metal ion, might be reasonable, but to postulate a suite of them is to appeal to magic".
Source - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Originally Posted by Mario92

1. Never said I did.
2. It is possible to use what we already know of the universe (neat things like physics, how the sun works, knowledge of the atmosphere and hydrosphere, etc etc etc) to ascertain a plausible environment that was likely to have occurred billions of years ago.

This is true, however, the probability is in the area amongst impossible events based off our current knowledge of the Universe. Now don't get it twisted. I'm for researching the Universe, quasars, galaxies, stars, planets and moons to enhance our knowledge but to throw up idea's unsupported by any evidence is a different story.

Originally Posted by Mario92

1. still don't believe it happened, only that it has a nice probability of having had occurred, considering what we know about the universe.

As I stated, you obviously believe something or else you wouldn't be here trying to defend it now would you? Why even waste your time on something you don't believe has transpired? It's ok to believe in something with no evidence, you don't have to convince these people here of anything because you believe in something that has no evidence or scientific support. That's faith you posses and you know what? It's ok to have faith. As far as probability, I think we know better now unless you're one of those stubborn atheist.

Originally Posted by Mario92

2. What we already know about the universe counts as evidence. I mean, the earth might have just popped into existence and god set down some microorganisms and later fully-formed humans, but this is so incredibly improbable and would so sharply contrast with our present knowledge in so many ways that it is just not feasible. It does not follow common sense, nor have any evidence in any form.

Well produce the numbers of how incredibly improbable God's existence is really. I've produce the numbers of how an event like abiogenesis stands up to the laws of probability and events deemed impossible in our Universe. I've demonstrated how scientist and mathematicians alike consider abiogenesis to be more akin to miracles and magic. Your turn.

Originally Posted by Mario92

3. You have failed to produce any evidence. You have no platform. Your beliefs are ill-conceived and entirely baseless. You're free to join me in the camp of "I don't know and I'm okay with that," but I have a feeling you'll turn your nose up at the invitation and go about believing in your god because it brings you comfort or peace of mind or whatever happiness you get out of it.

I don't have a problem with being in the "I don't know and I'm ok with that" camp. Christians invented that camp and I got a no evidence VIP pass. You and other atheist are the ones with problems understanding that it's ok to believe in the unknown. If you want to believe in abiogenesis without any evidence to support it then thats fine. My gripe here isn't even about the validity of Abiogenesis. My gripe is that you think it's a problem with believing in something you have absolutely no evidence for. However you gotta prove it to yourself that you're ok with that which obviously you're not. But whatever makes you sleep well at night. It doesn't really matter to me but now you know.

So what you're basically trying to say is that God must have created smallpox?

Originally Posted by Xei

So what you're basically trying to say is that God must have created smallpox?

No, what I am basically saying up there is, that it's ok to believe in something with no evidence.

Now in regards to smallpox. Man's original sin brought fourth sickness and death into this world, It didn't exist until man sinned.

Also, Geological evidence

Originally Posted by stonedape

So God could stop an enormous amount of suffering very easily, yet he doesn't but he is still compassionate? Is God being compassionate now or just after the second coming? Is God being compassionate now when he is witnessing suffering right before his eyes(I;m making the assumption here that God is omniscient, but I assume you agree) that he could easily prevent but doesn't just to prove a point, or whatever reason it is he is waiting for the second coming?

Stonedape, you're asking me the exact same question but in a different format. I've already explained this. I believe God's compassion for humans stands in the realm of what he has promised to do in regards to suffering, sickness and death as written in the scriptures on several accounts. Please do not ask me the same question again as I will not waste time repeating myself. Also yes, God is omniscient having the ability to witness various ways your future will turn out depending on the choices you make in life.

Originally Posted by Stonedape

And I don't recall talking down about God, I've even been using caps in this thread mostly and refrained from making a joke when PhilosopherStoned asked me if I was God.

Are you not the creator of this thread making jokes about Jesus and Religion?

^ Sinner.

^ Got what was coming to him.

^ No sympathy.

Also Geological evidence

Yea I hear you. Shame on God for creating something as beautiful as love.



I personally like how you only believe in God when it comes to bad things but things like your existence, art, nature, hope, kindness, love, family, a nice planet to live on, and a whole slew of other good things, you turn a cold shoulder to him.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Also Geological evidence

You really don't read my posts eh.

Evidence of the early appearance of life comes from the Isua supercrustal belt in Western Greenland and from similar formations in the nearby Akilia Islands. Carbon entering into rock formations has a ratio of Carbon-13 (13C) to Carbon-12 (12C) of about −5.5 (in units of δ13C), where because of a preferential biotic uptake of 12C, biomass has a δ13C of between −20 and −30. These isotopic fingerprints are preserved in the sediments, and Mojzis has used this technique to suggest that life existed on the planet already by 3.85 billion years ago.[29] Lazcano and Miller (1994) suggest that the rapidity of the evolution of life is dictated by the rate of recirculating water through mid-ocean submarine vents. Complete recirculation takes 10 million years, thus any organic compounds produced by then would be altered or destroyed by temperatures exceeding 300 °C (572 °F). They estimate that the development of a 100 kilobase genome of a DNA/protein primitive heterotroph into a 7000 gene filamentous cyanobacterium would have required only 7 Ma.[30]

I personally like how you only believe in God when it comes to bad things but things like your existence, art, nature, hope, kindness, love, family, a nice planet to live on, and a whole slew of other good things, you turn a cold shoulder to him.

Tell that to someone with smallpox.

Edit: By the way, I wonder if God is angered that we eradicated smallpox which he so lovingly created for us?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Also Geological evidence

I don't actually know what this is referring to, explain.

Yea I hear you. Shame on God for creating something as beautiful as love.

I personally like how you only believe in God when it comes to bad things but things like your existence, art, nature, hope, kindness, love, family, a nice planet to live on, and a whole slew of other good things, you turn a cold shoulder to him.

Holy crap, are you really this deficient in basic logic? Let me hold your hand through this mental feat:

B = benevolent God
G = everything is good

My argument:

B implies G
then not G implies not B [contrapositive law]
not G
then not B

Your argument:

not B does not imply not G
not not G
then B [batshit insanity law]

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't actually know what this is referring to, explain.

Yea I'm sure you don't. Nothing changes with you Xei, you're just as doggy as ever. You get yourself stuck in a corner and you draw a blank as usual. But whatever.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You really don't read my posts eh.

Yea I read your post. I'll get to it when I get to it. For starters your information is 1986 out-dated. Here's the original abstract Recent discoveries suggest otherwise. Don't worry I'll produce this information but if you plan on sleeping well tonight snugged up with your atheistic beliefs I wouldn't rush it.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Tell that to someone with smallpox.
Edit: By the way, I wonder if God is angered that we eradicated smallpox which he so lovingly created for us?

How about we explain to someone with smallpox your side of the story. Let's give them the down and gritty Atheistic view. Let's tell them that you're gonna die no one on this planet loves you as it is obvious that we spend billions upon billions of dollars on creating weapons to destroy each other when we could've invested that money in search of a cure for you but we don't care because we are our own people and answer to no one. We govern ourselves fine with the help of no one else. As a result of this, you're gonna die with no hopes of ever returning and you will never ever exist again. This is our harsh reality but whatever, it's life. Yea your story sounds a lot better. Oh and btw, because of this same attitude that we have is the reason why you have smallpox in the first place. But we're not going to change, because we don't care about morals and stuff.

Asking to explain the point so I can answer = dodging.

Epic fail tally currently at 3.

What I am asking you is to look back at that question you so eloquently left unanswered. If you would've answered it in the first place you wouldn't ask me to type in the question here all over again.

Someone once said "the seeds of morality are planted in the soil of responsibility". I think what stonedape is trying to demonstrate is that god is supposedly omniscient and is conscious of the suffering of the world and yet at the same time does nothing to appease this suffering.
Take this example: Im walking through the desert, I see a starving child with a vulture lurking behind it, I have a sandwich in my hand. What do I do?
Of course since it is in my power to help the child it becomes my moral responsibility to help the child( regardless of what religion you ascribe to).
Camus said even if god did exist it wouldnt matter, nothing would change we would still suffer in vain like Sisyphus.
Christianity deconstructs itself because it cannot adequately explain why we suffer. God knew in advance that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree of knowledge and knew the fate of humanity previous to the creation of Adam, and did nothing. If suffering was somehow a necessity for spiritual growth then it would be different but the only explanation of why we suffer in the bible is because Adam and Eves disobedience and fall from the Garden resulting in the subsequent humans being punished for being born. To me, gods indifference to suffering is more malevolent than "for our own good". Understandingly many people cant adhere to such a sadistic god

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

What I am asking you is to look back at that question you so eloquently left unanswered. If you would've answered it in the first place you wouldn't ask me to type in the question here all over again.

The one where I responded that Romans are fake, and then you said I didn't answer, and then I told you to ask anybody else if they understood the simple analogy, and you dropped it?

Okay sure let's pick it up from where we left off.

(lul at the irony of how in the latest of your 'Y U DODGE!?!' splurges you totally ignored my previous post).

It's the post prior to your analogy regarding the question as to geological evidence that I was asking you about. That's the question you dodged. Why are you riding the dummy on this? If you don't have an answer that's fine. I didn't really expect you to have one. And regarding the analogy why would you reply back to me with a question after I asked you one which you never answered?

You know what forget it Xei, because going back and fourth with you is getting a bit old. I'm going to watch my little cupcake play some soccer. I'll be back later.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

How about we explain to someone with smallpox your side of the story. Let's give them the down and gritty Atheistic view. Let's tell them that you're gonna die no one on this planet loves you as it is obvious that we spend billions upon billions of dollars on creating weapons to destroy each other when we could've invested that money in search of a cure for you but we don't care because we are our own people and answer to no one. We govern ourselves fine with the help of no one else. As a result of this, you're gonna die with no hopes of ever returning and you will never ever exist again. This is our harsh reality but whatever, it's life. Yea your story sounds a lot better. Oh and btw, because of this same attitude that we have is the reason why you have smallpox in the first place. But we're not going to change, because we don't care about morals and stuff.

You expose yourself. It is a harsh reality, fairy tales are a warm blanket in a blizzard.
I do care about morals and I don't have to be a theist to be a good person. If your reason for being a good person is just so that you can get to heaven then you really arent such a good person after all. I believe the morality of an action lies in the motive not the consequence.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And how do you supposed they've gotten geological evidence pertaining to conditions of early earth from over 4 Billion years ago that no longer exist?

This inanity is the one you're talking about, right?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Yea I read your post. I'll get to it when I get to it. For starters your information is 1986 out-dated. Here's the original abstract Recent discoveries suggest otherwise. Don't worry I'll produce this information but if you plan on sleeping well tonight snugged up with your atheistic beliefs I wouldn't rush it.

Broken link.

How about we explain to someone with smallpox your side of the story. Let's give them the down and gritty Atheistic view. Let's tell them that you're gonna die no one on this planet loves you as it is obvious that we spend billions upon billions of dollars on creating weapons to destroy each other when we could've invested that money in search of a cure for you but we don't care because we are our own people and answer to no one. We govern ourselves fine with the help of no one else. As a result of this, you're gonna die with no hopes of ever returning and you will never ever exist again. This is our harsh reality but whatever, it's life. Yea your story sounds a lot better. Oh and btw, because of this same attitude that we have is the reason why you have smallpox in the first place. But we're not going to change, because we don't care about morals and stuff.

So basically you believe in a god to give you a warm fuzzy feeling and protect you from the harsh realities of the world? This is the definition of delusional. You can believe in what you want, I wouldn't fault a child for having an imaginary friend, but when you step into the realm of established science with your delusions, you are being intellectually dishonest and bringing everybody down.

And now I suppose atheists are incapable of love or compassion? We must be sociopaths. Guess what, it was humans that cured smallpox. I wonder how many people would still be dying of it if we didn't take matters into our own hands and let our all benevolent invisible friend in the sky solve the problem for us. The same invisible friend that many people have fought wars over. Yes god has brought so much peace and joy to this world.

Think stormcrow was being the devil's advocate there. ;V

Does no one ever read my posts?

Here's is a break down of other posts I have have made regarding God's loving-kindness etc:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. But before that, he created myriads of spirit creatures to reside with him in his kingdom, which we call Heaven.
He created Jesus first (see John 1:1,*2; 3:13; 6:38,*62; 8:23, 42,*58) He used Jesus to create the other angels. Satan was once an angel, until he got it into his head that he should be worshiped as God.
Once man was created, that misbegotten angel came to earth to cause problems.
'Is it true that God said you must not eat from any of the trees in the garden' he asked of Eve.
None of the animals in the garden of Eden spoke, yet here was this snake, planting seeds of doubt within Eve. He told her if she ate from that forbidden tree, she would become like God- knowing good and evil.
She had a choice: trust God or the newcomer.
But the newcomer's proposition could be summed up so: 'Do you want God telling you what's right and wrong, good and bad, or would you rather say "Who needs him" and make up your own rules?'
Adam and Eve decided they could rule themselves just fine without any help from God.

Watching from the sidelines were all those angels. What would God do? Would he kill those ungrateful hoodlums? What would that prove? Was Satan right?
The only thing that would work is to allow time to pass. Let's see how well people can govern themselves without God's help.

So God drove the first couple out of garden, in a sense, saying "Prove it." "Prove you can do better without me."

Without God's blessing, they grew old and died. The imperfection was passed from offspring to offspring. As time passed, the genetic makeup became weaker. Poor choices and circumstances lead to things like disease. Faulty governments lead to suffering.
God didn't cause it, but he is allowing it to happen. People need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not they can live successfully without Him. So far, we're failing.
Even when we make strides and make wonderfully humane or magnificent accomplishments, it's not on a global scale. Someone, somewhere, still suffers.

When the case has been completely made that we are "merely dust", God will step in and make things right.
Our life time amounts to less than the THOUGHT of a breath. We're here and then we're gone. Though we suffer now, an eternity of happiness and peace awaits those who side with God.

Think of it in terms of a physical kingdom. Satan committed treason and a fourth of the angels sided with him. War was taking place. There was nothing else that God could do that would *ultimately* benefit both his heavenly and earthly courts.

And for those who say God causes the suffering to happen because he knew what would take place back in Eden- how do you know. Just because we can read the last page of a book first, doesn't mean we must. Imagine living an eternity that holds no sense of wonder or surprise.

That is quite the tale, how long ago did this happen?

Does no one ever read my posts?

Repeating Bible verses and arguments that have been heard a million times and whatnot, doesn't really help

Personally, I generally many of the posts here on a subject of substance to be a waste of my time. To be blunt, you're not particularly knowledgeable on such topics, and on complicated issues your insight/opinions do not add much value to the topic at hand.

Edit: rephrased slightly so I don't sound quite so much of a prick.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Yea, they've been owning you for some time now dude. I've been thinking, I don't think you're up for this task. So unfortunately, We're gonna have to let you go. Don't take it personal. oh and btw... don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Now that we got the losers out of the way, lets continue.

Hey look. I've gone and you're still getting pwned. Looks like I wasn't the problem after all. These atheists are strong in logic. I don't think they're good prey. Somebody needs to step in and save you're ass so here's the plan.

1. We change the subject back to The Generalized Quantum Theory of Relativistic String Evolution.
2. When they admit that they don't even know what it is, we make a really big deal about how we know more about their world-view than they do and that it's all based on ignorance and faith.
3. We slink off back into the shadowy realm from whence we came.
4. We wait for somebody that's weak in logic and desperate for an explanation of the trials and tribulations of life to come wondering by.
5. We pounce on them (as long as no intelligent atheists are around) and infect them with our vile memeplex.
6. At that point, we're good Christians that have spread The Gospel.

Does that sound like a plan?

Spartiate, I have no idea. I could hunt down a bunch of numbers but they mean nothing to me (I have dyscalculia so numbers in general are pretty lost to me). And as Photolysis pointed out, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed... when it comes to science.
I leave the arguments of Evolution and Creation Theory to those who know what they're talking about. Personally, I don't believe in evolution but I do believe in Adaptation. I believe dinosaurs walked the earth. I don't believe fossils were placed on the planet to mislead and confuse mankind
I don't believe that Creation, as set forth in Genesis, took place over 7 literal days.

Despite everything I don't know, I know the Bible. I have known and understand God. And I understand it so well, in part, because I see Heaven as another Government (but with God ruling, a perfect government without corruption). There's no babies floating around on fluffy clouds or people playing harps.

So, Photolysis, To each his own. My initial comment was more tongue in cheek than serious. If you had, indeed, actually read any of my posts you would know that. My intention is NEVER to stir the pot. I enter a thread, offer my knowledge and opinion, and then I usually leave (though I lurk and try to keep up with the discussion).
I'm sorry to have so strongly rubbed you the wrong way.

My initial comment was more tongue in cheek than serious

If that is the case then I apologise. I've seen similar kinds of posts so much that even I find it hard to determine when someone is joking. One person's satire is another person's truth.

I'm sorry to have so strongly rubbed you the wrong way.

Hah, far from it. I have nothing against you personally, I'm just explaining why on scientific/religious threads and whatnot I don't pay too much attention to what a lot of people post (including yourself) in my typical brutally honest cold-hearted style.

Trust me, if you ever did irritate me, you'd know :p