Bingo!
I said you would deny, and you did.You are agnostic so by definition you do not know
You really need to get a dictionary.
You obviously don't understand what that means. I have been consistent in saying the Richat Structure is not Atlantis. And I'll stick to that opinion because that's what the evidence indicates.Merriam-Webster … a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something.
Richat Structure is not Atlantis. And I'll stick to that opinion because
.. that this dude is a truth seeker and is thus looking for a singular single event (ie: a 'what') and not considering, for a minute, the evidence of long timespan geological processes (ie: the 'how').
The evidence is so overwhelming…
long timespan geological processes
Scientists have different reasons, however.Gradualists explained geological features as the result of slowly acting processes such as erosion, while catastrophists argued that Earth had been shaped mainly by a series of violent events or catastrophes
encyclopedia.com
Scientists have different reasons, however.
'Opposed'?
Science and pseudoscience is distinguished by the separate 'how' approaches to investigations:Skeptics like to say they disagree with pseudo science
Merely the appropriate place for presenting it then …
Are you implying scientific thinkers don't do that?