The paragraph is straightforward, and comprehensible to me. It says everything it needs to. Parsing it shouldn't be difficult to a practiced reader. Did you simply not want to attempt to refute the arguments?
"You've replied with a dense paragraph that is difficult to parse, so I'll wait until you clarify with something a bit less bulky and awkward."
I'm not sure where to put this logical fallacy, is it an appeal to stone, or perhaps an appeal to personal incredulity? Facts are sometimes 'bulky and awkward' to those who do not recognize them as such.
Trying to scare people into believing what you believe by saying 'nature will sort you out' is a transparent appeal to emotion, and appeal to threat.
Walls of text aren't conducive to parsing.
Its a pretty simple request. But seeing how emotionally invested you are, I suppose there's no point in pursuing it.
Believe what you want.
"But seeing how emotionally invested you are" You seem to keep repeating this after every cold, calculated, logical statement that I make.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I parse walls of text all the time. It's only not conducive to parsing if the knowledge of reason isn't present to do it.
Then, finally, there is the difference between yourself and those who choose reason. You see, I don't 'believe', I think and know by using reason.