Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
Suzanne
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:53:57 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 10:47 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 1:50 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 17, 10:49 am, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > In
> >> > > <3fba0a39-f2a0-428d-a654-a61981407...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> > > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >On Nov 14, 4:18 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> On Nov 14, 3:46 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > You stated elsewhere; "I went to the University of Texas in Austin,
> >> > > >> > > Texas, the original campus. I was a physics major, but I switched to
> >> > > >> > > Education." (post dated 3 May 2000). The physics major piece I just
> >> > > >> > > don't believe for one second, as your understanding of even the most
> >> > > >> > > simple physics is woeful. That colours my opinion of anything else you
> >> > > >> > > say.
>
> >> > > >> Did you attend UoT as a physics major? Of course not. A silent fart
> >> > > >> still smells.
>
> >> > > >Yes I did attend as a physics major.
>
> >> > > For how long were you a physics major? How many physics or
> >> > > mathematics courses did you complete as a physics major?
>
> >> > The first year in college I was enrolled in physics,
> >> > and that's it. This class that I attended was only
> >> > for a guest lecturer that I wanted to hear. Now, for
> >> > what reason are you asking me these questions?
>
> >> > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> I see now I was mistaken about he graduate program, it was a physics
> >> major.
>
> >> Why ask those quesstions? Because you used the claim to have been in
> >> a physics major to back up one of your absurd posts.
>
> >No, I had no such motive. I don't need to do that
> >just to talk about something in physics. A person
> >does not have to have a physics degree in order
> >to speak of a subject in physics.
>
> True, but you do have to have at least some knowledge to avoid looking
> like an idiot the way you always do when you spout such garbage on the
> subject.
>
If someone does not appear to be an idiot, you
will be sure to try to make them look like one, so
what's the difference?
>
>
> >Are you a
> >professional football player? Do you have to be
> >one in order to explain a football play to another
> >person? Of course not.
>
> But, to avoid making a fool of himself, he would at least need some
> knowledge of football.
>
You are trying to tear up a perfectly good illustration.
Your answer shows this.
>
> you have demonstrated time and time again that you knowledge of
> anything scientific is totally lacking.
>
What I have been told that I demonstrate is patience
with you. I don't know how true that is, but that is
what I have been told.
>
> >> I suggest you
> >> answer them and try to save face by lying about your success.
>
> >Oh really? What am I supposed to have been successful about? Cetainly
> >it would not be at
> >relying on someone's acceptance of anything
> >at all that I could reply, since you have thrown
> >out the seeds of doubt.
>
> >> My bet is that the first time the prof mentioned something that
> >> contradicted the bible you got into an argument about it and were
> >> tossed out.
>
> >Harry, when I took any kind of science, over 50
> >years ago, most of the teachers were Christians
> >and they believed the Bible.
>
> No they didn't. That idea is totally rubbish. Intelligent people have
> not believed in the bible like you do for well over a century.
>
Another really silly statement.
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 21, 6:39�am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:53:57 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
...
>> >No, I had no such motive. I don't need to do that
>> >just to talk about something in physics. A person
>> >does not have to have a physics degree in order
>> >to speak of a subject in physics.
>>
>> True, but you do have to have at least some knowledge to avoid looking
>> like an idiot the way you always do when you spout such garbage on the
>> subject.
>>
>If someone does not appear to be an idiot, you
>will be sure to try to make them look like one, so
>what's the difference?
Take responsibility for what you do. Don't blame others for your
behavior.
>> >Are you a
>> >professional football player? Do you have to be
>> >one in order to explain a football play to another
>> >person? Of course not.
>>
>> But, to avoid making a fool of himself, he would at least need some
>> knowledge of football.
>>
>You are trying to tear up a perfectly good illustration.
>Your answer shows this.
Or your illustration was faulty.
>> you have demonstrated time and time again that you knowledge of
>> anything scientific is totally lacking.
>>
>What I have been told that I demonstrate is patience
>with you. I don't know how true that is, but that is
>what I have been told.
Of course you have patience. You are trying to wait out those who have
evidence that shows that you make false claims.
>> >> I suggest you
>> >> answer them and try to save face by lying about your success.
>>
>> >Oh really? What am I supposed to have been successful about? Cetainly
>> >it would not be at
>> >relying on someone's acceptance of anything
>> >at all that I could reply, since you have thrown
>> >out the seeds of doubt.
>>
>> >> My bet is that the first time the prof mentioned something that
>> >> contradicted the bible you got into an argument about it and were
>> >> tossed out.
>>
>> >Harry, when I took any kind of science, over 50
>> >years ago, most of the teachers were Christians
>> >and they believed the Bible.
>>
>> No they didn't. That idea is totally rubbish. Intelligent people have
>> not believed in the bible like you do for well over a century.
>>
>Another really silly statement.
The doctrines that you preach from the Bible have been known to be false
for at least one or two centuries. Why don't you try to bring your
teachings into line with reality?
Ye Old One
Nobody can make you look like an idiot unless you are - your problem
is that you give so much evidence for your idiocy.
>>
>>
>> >Are you a
>> >professional football player? Do you have to be
>> >one in order to explain a football play to another
>> >person? Of course not.
>>
>> But, to avoid making a fool of himself, he would at least need some
>> knowledge of football.
>>
>You are trying to tear up a perfectly good illustration.
>Your answer shows this.
No, I pointed out that to explain something you actually need to know
what you are talking about. You have shown, time after time, that you
are totally ignorant. They normally say that wisdom comes with age -
if so then I would have hated to come across you when you were
younger.
>>
>> you have demonstrated time and time again that you knowledge of
>> anything scientific is totally lacking.
>>
>What I have been told that I demonstrate is patience
>with you. I don't know how true that is, but that is
>what I have been told.
The voices in your head don't count.
>>
>> >> I suggest you
>> >> answer them and try to save face by lying about your success.
>>
>> >Oh really? What am I supposed to have been successful about? Cetainly
>> >it would not be at
>> >relying on someone's acceptance of anything
>> >at all that I could reply, since you have thrown
>> >out the seeds of doubt.
>>
>> >> My bet is that the first time the prof mentioned something that
>> >> contradicted the bible you got into an argument about it and were
>> >> tossed out.
>>
>> >Harry, when I took any kind of science, over 50
>> >years ago, most of the teachers were Christians
>> >and they believed the Bible.
>>
>> No they didn't. That idea is totally rubbish. Intelligent people have
>> not believed in the bible like you do for well over a century.
>>
>Another really silly statement.
Nope. You, and other creationists on this group prove that statement
correct beyond all doubt.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.