Look, this is the way adult debate works. You have to support your assertions in some way so that the other person has the opportunity to refute them. If they can do so convincingly, then as a mature adult, you adjust your position. But every time your assertions have been meaningfully challenged, you've simply changed the topic so as to not have to deal with that. Insisting on doubling down on your beliefs, even when they've been demonstrated to not actually hold water, or to continuously evade supporting them in any meaningful way is what insecure children do. If wanting to debate like an adult makes me entitled, then so be it, because asserting that you have a right to believe whatever you want without actually being able to point convincingly to why you hold those beliefs is pathetic. Just as I don't get to assert that the sky is actually purple or that the moon is made of blue cheese because after all, not everyone agrees, you don't get to assert whatever you want without being able to at least make a convincing argument for why you think what you do. Didn't you say that you'd participated in writing scientific papers in the past? In them did you just get to say whatever you wanted to without any substance to back you up? No, of course not and the same hold true here.

I don't accept agree to disagree when it's clearly just a way for you to weasel out of admitting that at least some of your assertions have been definitively proven to be wrong - like the alpha thing. And, it's not like me saying this is going to change anything so I guess I'm officially giving up.