'only 4-6,000 years ago,   not for before, or after...?
That rather narrows it down, doesn't it..?'

REPLY:  That is the time when most of the Old Testament of the Bible was
written.  There is approx. 100 scientific facts and processes written
down in the O.T.  which modern science confirmed to be absolutely
accurate.  No wonder the Founders of our Modern Sciences were devouted
Bible Believers , and, no wonder our fellow Brit., C.S. Lewis and Prof.
Fred Hoyle ,  became one too.  

'The entire 'faith' (sic) in atheism is based upon rationalising what
knowledge and evidence we have and not just accepting some mythology
being spread '

REPLY:  Actually Mark, if atheism IS correct, you shouldnt have the
capacity to rationalize, reason, decipher, discern, love, think in
abstract thoughts, have morality,  et al... since the Universe is an
accidental entity and made up of materials which cannot deliver (non
material) personality traits .  Therefore, youve proven by your
statement above , that,   atheism is a  hypocritical secular religion .

'Hope that helps Mark. 
****** 
No it doesn't.   You are still under the obligation to provide
evidence for your statement. 
****** 
Mark'

REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
Mark.  Doing a google is all i can suggest at this point .  Is there
anything else you would like to discuss along the lines of atheism in
this thread ???

X-No-Archive: yes

"Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote in message 
news:26195-47828F1F-3128@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...


REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
Mark.  Doing a google is all i can suggest at this point .  Is there
anything else you would like to discuss along the lines of atheism in
this thread ???



Well dave... that's about it then isn't it...
What you must now know that all who have been here and read these threads 
are absolutely sure, along with me, that you have not offered one iota of 
evidence for the monumental assertions you have made.
It follows that without the evidence from you, your statements are deemed 
not to be true or correct.
It's a simple situation and one that you have ceded under the guise of 
patronising and sarcastic musing. I, nor others here, are fooled by your 
avoidance techniques.
What most people are happy with is the sure knowledge that you can offer NO 
evidence for your irrational and myopic ideology or asertions.
Quite what point you are trying to make here by nonsensical posting of 
inescapably inane comments...... I am at a loss to know.


Mark

On Jan 7, 1:58 pm, "mark"  wrote:

> Well dave... that's about it then isn't it...
> What you must now know that all who have been here and read these threads
> are absolutely sure, along with me, that you have not offered one iota of
> evidence for the monumental assertions you have made.
> It follows that without the evidence from you, your statements are deemed
> not to be true or correct.
> It's a simple situation and one that you have ceded under the guise of
> patronising and sarcastic musing. I, nor others here, are fooled by your
> avoidance techniques.
> What most people are happy with is the sure knowledge that you can offer NO
> evidence for your irrational and myopic ideology or asertions.
> Quite what point you are trying to make here by nonsensical posting of
> inescapably inane comments...... I am at a loss to know.
>
> Mark

Best summed up in Dimwit's own words: (I have) "no evidence for you"

The message 
from DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) contains these words:

> REPLY:  That is the time when most of the Old Testament of the Bible was
> written.  There is approx. 100 scientific facts and processes written
> down in the O.T. which modern science confirmed to be absolutely
> accurate.  

Care to list them for us?

-- 
**********
David W-G
**********

X-No-Archive: yes

"Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote in message 
news:26195-47828F1F-3128@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
'only 4-6,000 years ago, not for before, or after...?
That rather narrows it down, doesn't it..?'


REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
Mark.



On further consideration, I cannot let this go without comment.
This is a classic 'strawman' tactic.   You DO have an obligation to produce 
evidence,   not for me of course, but to support your assertion.
It is not about me, my beliefs, my attitude or my anything........  it is 
about YOU and your statements that are incorrect that obliges you to provide 
the evidence to show they are NOT incorrect.
You do understand this, don't you...?
Frankly dave, you have not moved one millionth of an inch further forward 
with your expoundings - all of which are based upon faith alone - and for 
which you have yet to publish any factual evidence.....

Bob Dylan wrote a great few lines in Positively Fourth Street.

"I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes"
"and for that second I could be you"
"I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes"
"then you'd know just what a drag it is to see you"

If you could step outside of your 'shell' you would come to understand how 
ridiculous your position is.  Not your personal faith.......that's your 
choice, but your utter, miserable and woeful attempts at evangelising.  You 
will, I'm afraid, NEVER encourage one person to join your cause unless you 
learn some more things...[..and even then, you will struggle with the 
nonsensical message]
Oh,   and access *other* information outside of your religious agenda 
circle.
You have proved nothing here to anyone and your statements are like chaff - 
they have been blown in the wind as light, unnecessary and irrelevant 
dust...


Mark

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:11:03 -0000, "mark" 
wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>"Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote in message 
>news:26195-47828F1F-3128@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
>'only 4-6,000 years ago, not for before, or after...?
>That rather narrows it down, doesn't it..?'

Attributions cleaned up because the webtv moron can't be bothered to
post his replies properly.

>>REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
>>anything whatsoever  

Lie. He assumed the burden of proof after begging he question.

>>                    if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward

Lie. It's about "put up or shut up".

It's not for _us_ but for the claimant.

>>the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
>>Mark.

Arrogant, nasty, stupid  and dishonest.

Why are we expected to put up with this?

>On further consideration, I cannot let this go without comment.
>This is a classic 'strawman' tactic.   You DO have an obligation to produce 
>evidence,   not for me of course, but to support your assertion.

It's not just a straw man but a standard Christian dishonesty that
attempts to cop out of the burden of proof they take on when they
rudely and stupidly presume it outside their religion.

Unfortunately they _all_ do this. Every single Christian at least
sometimes talks about it as though it were real to an audience they
know doesn't share this belief.

The sensible ones keep this to a minimum. But they still do it.

They _all_ imagine they are exempt from the burden of proof and all
find cop out "excuses".

>It is not about me, my beliefs, my attitude or my anything........  it is 
>about YOU and your statements that are incorrect that obliges you to provide 
>the evidence to show they are NOT incorrect.

Exactly.

>You do understand this, don't you...?

He doesn't care.

>Frankly dave, you have not moved one millionth of an inch further forward 
>with your expoundings - all of which are based upon faith alone - and for 
>which you have yet to publish any factual evidence.....

He's a sociopath bordering on psychopath.

Nobody else's feelings about anything, especially how he treats them,
are worth beans.

>Bob Dylan wrote a great few lines in Positively Fourth Street.
>
>"I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes"
>"and for that second I could be you"
>"I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes"
>"then you'd know just what a drag it is to see you"

That's too complicated for a sociopath.

He ignores even his religion's overly simplistic one-size fits all
rule, because nobody else matters.

>If you could step outside of your 'shell' you would come to understand how 
>ridiculous your position is.  Not your personal faith.......that's your 
>choice, but your utter, miserable and woeful attempts at evangelising.  You 
>will, I'm afraid, NEVER encourage one person to join your cause unless you 
>learn some more things...[..and even then, you will struggle with the 
>nonsensical message]

He's not evangelising. He's just being bigotedly nasty.

He sees himself as a foot soldier for the lord, taking pot shots at a
hated enemy even though they have done nothing to him. He imagines
that doing this makes some kind of point - but it's the same kind as
burning crosses outside black homes, beating up gays, painting
swastikas outside Jewish homes etc.

It's a hate crime against the last remaining minority society lets him
get away with doing it to.

>Oh,   and access *other* information outside of your religious agenda 
>circle.
>You have proved nothing here to anyone and your statements are like chaff - 
>they have been blown in the wind as light, unnecessary and irrelevant 
>dust...

Actually he has proved a lot - about himself. And none of it is
flattering.

But he's in denial and shuts it out of his mind.

>Mark
>
>
>
>

"mark"  wrote in message 
news:t7SdnXOmYtz46x7anZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@bt.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote in message 
> news:26195-47828F1F-3128@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
> 'only 4-6,000 years ago, not for before, or after...?
> That rather narrows it down, doesn't it..?'
>
>
> REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
> anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
> the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
> Mark.
>
>
>
> On further consideration, I cannot let this go without comment.
> This is a classic 'strawman' tactic.   You DO have an obligation to 
> produce evidence,   not for me of course, but to support your assertion.
> It is not about me, my beliefs, my attitude or my anything........  it is 
> about YOU and your statements that are incorrect that obliges you to 
> provide the evidence to show they are NOT incorrect.
> You do understand this, don't you...?
> Frankly dave, you have not moved one millionth of an inch further forward 
> with your expoundings - all of which are based upon faith alone - and for 
> which you have yet to publish any factual evidence.....
>
> Bob Dylan wrote a great few lines in Positively Fourth Street.
>
> "I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes"
> "and for that second I could be you"
> "I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes"
> "then you'd know just what a drag it is to see you"
>
> If you could step outside of your 'shell' you would come to understand how 
> ridiculous your position is.  Not your personal faith.......that's your 
> choice, but your utter, miserable and woeful attempts at evangelising. 
> You will, I'm afraid, NEVER encourage one person to join your cause unless 
> you learn some more things...[..and even then, you will struggle with the 
> nonsensical message]
> Oh,   and access *other* information outside of your religious agenda 
> circle.
> You have proved nothing here to anyone and your statements are like 
> chaff - they have been blown in the wind as light, unnecessary and 
> irrelevant dust...
>
>
> Mark
>
FFS, just plonk the stupid bugger!
Graham

The message 
from "mark"  contains these words:

> REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
> anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
> the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
> Mark.

The insincerity is yours.  You pretend to have the evidence to support
your beliefs but always dodge actually producing it.  We all know the
reason is that there is no credible evidence for you to produce

-- 
**********
David W-G
**********

X-No-Archive: yes

"graham"  wrote in message 
news:y9Mgj.27534$EA5.20258@pd7urf2no...


> FFS, just plonk the stupid bugger!
> Graham


Yes... of course, I know your right.
Probably, like many before me, one feels that one might show the fragility 
of their belief system but.......
indoctrinated dogma is a difficult concept to address.
There are times in this life when intellectual argument screams "enough" 
from mindless, irrational behaviour.


Mark

On Jan 8, 10:25 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "graham"  wrote in message
>
> news:y9Mgj.27534$EA5.20258@pd7urf2no...
>
> > FFS, just plonk the stupid bugger!
> > Graham
>
> Yes... of course, I know your right.
> Probably, like many before me, one feels that one might show the fragility> of their belief system but.......
> indoctrinated dogma is a difficult concept to address.
> There are times in this life when intellectual argument screams "enough"
> from mindless, irrational behaviour.
>
> Mark

REPLY:  Mark, Like countless others, I abandoned Atheism  due to its
lack of evidence , its self centered philosophical appeal, and in
light of Modern Science.  I wasnt raised in a Christian/Theist
household  and BECAME an atheist in my early 20's which lasted for a
good 10  years.  I closely examined the other side to Life and very
carefully and methodically slowly became convinced that Christianity
not only lined up with the discoveries of Modern Science, but,  also
lined up with the true heart and condition of Man.   How did you
become 'an atheist'  , and, what is it thats so philosophically
appealing to you personally in your life ?   Id like to have a
friendly chat with you, if you are able Mark.  Thanks.

On 1/8/08 10:25 AM, in article 3130303031303439478395F952@zetnet.co.uk,
"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote:

> The message 
> from "mark"  contains these words:
> 
>> REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
>> anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
>> the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
>> Mark.
> 
> The insincerity is yours.  You pretend to have the evidence to support
> your beliefs but always dodge actually producing it.  We all know the
> reason is that there is no credible evidence for you to produce


   You've heard that from us for so long that it's actually stuck with you
finally...only like the duplicitous individual that you are...you never
follow through yourself... You've had every one of your points challenged
and references given for support...the list is in the thousands by now, I'm
sure...you have never given one piece of evidence...it's all been one huge
lie....like your 'faith'

Here's my corrected post...towards DILV..not Dave WG

On 1/8/08 10:25 AM, in article 3130303031303439478395F952@zetnet.co.uk,
"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote:

> The message 
> from "mark"  contains these words:
> 
>> REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
>> anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
>> the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
>> Mark.
> 
> The insincerity is yours.  You pretend to have the evidence to support
> your beliefs but always dodge actually producing it.  We all know the
> reason is that there is no credible evidence for you to produce


   Dilv,
    You've heard that from us for so long that it's actually stuck with you
finally...only like the duplicitous individual that you are...you never
follow through yourself... You've had every one of your points challenged
and references given for support...the list is in the thousands by now, I'm
sure...you have never given one piece of evidence...it's all been one huge
lie....like your 'faith'

On Jan 8, 11:40 am, TT  wrote:
> On 1/8/08 10:25 AM, in article 3130303031303439478395F...@zetnet.co.uk,
>
> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote:
> > The message 
> > from "mark"  contains these words:
>
> >> REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
> >> anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
> >> the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
> >> Mark.
>
> > The insincerity is yours.  You pretend to have the evidence to support> > your beliefs but always dodge actually producing it.  We all know the
> > reason is that there is no credible evidence for you to produce
>
>    You've heard that from us for so long that it's actually stuck with you
> finally...only like the duplicitous individual that you are...you never
> follow through yourself... You've had every one of your points challenged
> and references given for support...the list is in the thousands by now, I'm
> sure...you have never given one piece of evidence...it's all been one huge> lie....like your 'faith'

REPLY: TT,  Your Faith is considerably greater than mine as an
atheist.  Did you know that ?

On Jan 8, 10:40 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:40 am, TT  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/8/08 10:25 AM, in article 3130303031303439478395F...@zetnet.co.uk,
>
> > "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote:
> > > The message 
> > > from "mark"  contains these words:
>
> > >> REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on> > >> anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
> > >> the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
> > >> Mark.
>
> > > The insincerity is yours.  You pretend to have the evidence to support
> > > your beliefs but always dodge actually producing it.  We all know the
> > > reason is that there is no credible evidence for you to produce
>
> >    You've heard that from us for so long that it's actually stuck with you
> > finally...only like the duplicitous individual that you are...you never
> > follow through yourself... You've had every one of your points challenged
> > and references given for support...the list is in the thousands by now, I'm
> > sure...you have never given one piece of evidence...it's all been one huge
> > lie....like your 'faith'
>
> REPLY: TT,  Your Faith is considerably greater than mine as an
> atheist.  Did you know that ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

He KNOWS a lot more than you, a poorly educated waste of 4 billion
years of evolution.

It takes NO FAITH AT ALL not to believe in something that has never
existed, but Xitans need to hang to any straw they can find to support
their psychotic religious delusions

On 1/8/08 1:40 PM, in article
e2fcadf5-87b7-4ed5-8527-86815644bff1@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
"IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  wrote:

> On Jan 8, 11:40 am, TT  wrote:
>> On 1/8/08 10:25 AM, in article 3130303031303439478395F...@zetnet.co.uk,
>> 
>> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote:
>>> The message 
>>> from "mark"  contains these words:
>> 
>>>> REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
>>>> anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
>>>> the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
>>>> Mark.
>> 
>>> The insincerity is yours.  You pretend to have the evidence to support
>>> your beliefs but always dodge actually producing it.  We all know the
>>> reason is that there is no credible evidence for you to produce
>> 
>>    You've heard that from us for so long that it's actually stuck with you
>> finally...only like the duplicitous individual that you are...you never
>> follow through yourself... You've had every one of your points challenged
>> and references given for support...the list is in the thousands by now, I'm
>> sure...you have never given one piece of evidence...it's all been one huge
>> lie....like your 'faith'
> 
> REPLY: TT,  Your Faith is considerably greater than mine as an
> atheist.  Did you know that ?


  My faith in a lot of things..humanity, reason, truth are all obviously
logarithmically greater than yours.....lucky thing I don't need faith in
lies like creationism and mythological creatures like unicorns, fairies,
god, jesus to be an atheist...

David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
> The message 
> from "mark"  contains these words:
> 
>> REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
>> anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
>> the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
>> Mark.
> 
> The insincerity is yours.  You pretend to have the evidence to support
> your beliefs but always dodge actually producing it.  We all know the
> reason is that there is no credible evidence for you to produce
> 

That's because he thinks that his list of "100 reasons that 
abiogenesis/evolution couldn't have happened" is evidence for his god.

He can't understand that (even setting aside the spurious nature of 
his reasons) the "argument from ignorance" is not only logically 
flawed but fails to provide any evidence for his own position.

regards, Ian

> "Dave in Lake Villa"  wrote in message
> news:26195-47828F1F-3128@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
>
>
> REPLY:  Mark,  Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
> anything whatsoever  if i detect  insincerity and a closed mind toward
> the particular issue at hand.  And ...I do.   Ergo, no evidence for you
> Mark.

HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!

Lazy, arrogant and trying to hide the fact he has nothing. Obviously Dave is 
all too aware he doesn't know what he is talking about because he has NEVER 
posted a single piece of evidence to back his ludicrous claims.

Killfile the troll fool.

Steve M

"mark"  wrote in message 
news:NJqdnXibTcuUOR7anZ2dnUVZ8qWhnZ2d@bt.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "graham"  wrote in message 
> news:y9Mgj.27534$EA5.20258@pd7urf2no...
>
>
>> FFS, just plonk the stupid bugger!
>> Graham
>
>
> Yes... of course, I know your right.
> Probably, like many before me, one feels that one might show the fragility 
> of their belief system but.......
> indoctrinated dogma is a difficult concept to address.
> There are times in this life when intellectual argument screams "enough" 
> from mindless, irrational behaviour.
>
DILV has been posting here for several years and, for most of that time, 
they were just cut and run posts to stir us up.  He now sticks around 
knowing that he can get his jollies on a continuing basis.  He is just not 
worth the time.  If everyone plonked him, and his mate Len, we might be able 
to have some calm, rational discussions, that is until Pearse rears his 
"adolescent" head!
Graham

TT wrote:
> On 1/8/08 1:40 PM, in article
> e2fcadf5-87b7-4ed5-8527-86815644bff1@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
> "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  wrote:
>
>> On Jan 8, 11:40 am, TT  wrote:
>>> On 1/8/08 10:25 AM, in article
>>> 3130303031303439478395F...@zetnet.co.uk,
>>>
>>> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote:
>>>> The message 
>>>> from "mark"  contains these words:
>>>
>>>>> REPLY: Mark, Im under no obligation to give you any evidence on
>>>>> anything whatsoever if i detect insincerity and a closed mind
>>>>> toward the particular issue at hand. And ...I do. Ergo, no
>>>>> evidence for you Mark.
>>>
>>>> The insincerity is yours. You pretend to have the evidence to
>>>> support your beliefs but always dodge actually producing it. We
>>>> all know the reason is that there is no credible evidence for you
>>>> to produce
>>>
>>> You've heard that from us for so long that it's actually stuck with
>>> you finally...only like the duplicitous individual that you
>>> are...you never follow through yourself... You've had every one of
>>> your points challenged and references given for support...the list
>>> is in the thousands by now, I'm sure...you have never given one
>>> piece of evidence...it's all been one huge lie....like your 'faith'
>>
>> REPLY: TT,  Your Faith is considerably greater than mine as an
>> atheist.  Did you know that ?
>
>
>  My faith in a lot of things..humanity, reason, truth are all
> obviously logarithmically greater than yours.....lucky thing I don't
> need faith in lies like creationism and mythological creatures like
> unicorns, fairies, god, jesus to be an atheist...

If you look in the right way at the right place and time you might just 
discover that unicorns and faries aren't so mythological. ]:)