@Girl_Powered
If you want me to agree to disagree and stop talking to you, you would do well not to slap me in the face with a glove in the same post.
“I don’t, I don’t find them valid, they don’t need refuting.”
What the deuce are you saying? Of course they need refuting, especially if they’re invalid.
You need to explain to us why they’re invalid. That’s what “refuting” means.
Unless you find my arguments invalid for no reason at all, refuting them should only be a matter of speaking your mind.
“I will trust several different science texts, several different professors trained in both biology and history, the British Museum and Charles Darwin before considering your contradictory theory.”
Then at the very least, refute me with reference to them.
I doubt they even say what you think they say. PROVE ME WRONG!
As for your taller aristocrat argument: how do you explain the fact that they are not taller than everyone else? Like you said, they’ve been eating well for centuries more than the rest of us, and if eating well triggered an evolution to become taller, why aren’t the (former) aristocrats taller than the rest of us?
I explained how this is not a problem to my explanation. Our eating habits changed in ways that could affect our stature in ways that they could not have affected those of the aristocrats of yore.
Here’s a hint: I think you can probably adapt the same explanation to support your own position. Now you give it a try.
“I will stick to my more than a little expensive tertiary education and ignore your determined and very closed minded ‘guesses’ thank you.
Please don’t bother beginning an endless series of lectures bases on guesswork as you have with some others, unlike some of those who ‘play ping pong post’ with you, I am not interested in responding to a plainly biased person.”
How dare you?
If you accuse me of closed-mindedness and bias, I demand that you tell me what you base this judgement on. In PM, if you must.
How outrageous you are.
You have evaded and dismissed my arguments for no given reason, replied to a meticulous explanation why your argument doesn’t hold with no more than “yes it does”, referred to authorities (who I have been given no reason to believe are even on your side) in lieu of motivating your views, and then went on to call me biased.
Well, madam, I for one defend the positions I take. I handle criticism on my views by actually addressing it and evaluating whether it holds water or not, I explicitly refute counter-arguments when I can, and I do change my mind when I cannot. I believe what I believe for explicit reasons, reasons I share with the rest of the world to comment on and attack. I purposely put my beliefs on the line to test whether I should keep them.
But I’m also critical thinker, and in order to persuade me, you’ll need solid arguments that I cannot find fatal flaws in. And if other people fail to attack my beliefs in ways I cannot parry, I will not change my mind for what I have good reasons to believe are not to good reasons.
Do not mistake scepticism for closed-mindedness. They are very different.