Kleinman writes:
Ok Tangle, prepare yourself, I'm going to give you a straight answer.
Tangle writes:
And then you don't.
You mean that admitting that I'm not a fish-to-mammal aficionado is not a straight answer? I'm so disappointed in you!
Tangle writes:
That's ok, we now know you to be the usual dishonest creationist only you have the added dishonour of not having the courage or conviction of your beliefs.
What's dishonest about admitting I'm not a fish-to-mammal aficionado? It's the truth. So what is it that makes you "think you and your kind (whatever your imagination thinks that kind is) properly understand science. Well actually I know you don't." When it is you that admits you don't understand science. Do you remember when you said this in
Message 12?
Tangle writes:
Not sure why I'm still here really. I haven't learned anything new for years. Mostly habit I guess.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has changed their minds about anything; most have hardened.
Why don't you give it a shot and try to learn introductory probability theory? The subject really isn't that difficult. You might surprise yourself.
Tangle writes:
Your cock has crowed more than three times. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You should read that story more carefully. Peter denied Christ 3 times. I'm only denying a mathematically irrational theory (many more than 3 times) and if you understood introductory probability theory, so would you.