I cannot see how it is feasible to have a discussion with a person that refuses to listen to others, to learn or to recognize that most of what they declare as knowledge of a subject is conjecture they imagine are facts.
It was obvious pretty early on that most of the declarations were empty and not only don't conform with the evidence of observation and experiment, but more often conflict with it. Then too, the conflict of views that are contrary to previously offered empty assertions. None of it offers any sort of useable, rational explanation of observations.
I gave up when I read that posts weren't addressed and evidence wasn't provided so the message could be preached to lurkers. Kind of defeats the purpose of a discussion.