I'm not presenting evidence, because you haven't presented an argument. You took some cherry-picked testimony, knowing full well that it disagrees with the vast body of testimony, and tried to use it to claim that, since this testimony is obviously unreliable, all the testimony must therefore be unreliable.

That's not an argument, it's a non-sequitur.

Screeching "EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE!" isn't an argument, either.

Meanwhile, I've presented a rational argument, explaining away all of your objections, and all you can do in response is demand evidence we both know exists, and you could easily find on your own, call me childish and accuse me of being a good writer.

So, tell me, where, in all of that, does your argument lie?

I'm not presenting evidence, because you haven't presented an argument. You took some cherry-picked testimony, knowing full well that it disagrees with the vast body of testimony, and tried to use it to claim that, since this testimony is obviously unreliable, all the testimony must therefore be unreliable.

That's not an argument, it's a non-sequitur.

Screeching "EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE!" isn't an argument, either.

Meanwhile, I've presented a rational argument, explaining all of your objections, and all you can do in response is demand evidence we both know exists, and you could easily find on your own, call me childish and accuse me of being a good writer.

So, tell me, where, in all of that, does your argument lie?