Originally Posted by Jabba
But you don't address their arguments. You simply reiterate that you'd like to keep believing in what you've been claiming. Disagreement without a rational explanation is just intransigence.
Address these points and then maybe your denial might have a rational basis.
1. The operant conclusion is a speculative inference without support.
2. The inference is drawn by Marino and Prior, who are not experts, not by the cited authority.
3. The inference is one of several possible antecedents; you consider only it.
4. The consequent is directly refuted by competent expertise.
5. The rationale from speculative inference to consequent is contravened by pertinent testimony which the authors misrepresent.
Unless you plan on actually addressing any of those explanations with anything more potent than denial and doubt, you're just proposing another spin of the hamster wheel. This would tend to confirm the criticism that you don't intend to have a serious discussion.