Your assertions about what is acceptable evidence etc. sounds like a Roman Catholic deeply awash in Maryolatry pretending to have a dialogue with a Pentecostal fiercely opposed to Maryolatry.
The RC awash in such is often intensely rigid, narrow, biased about what is acceptable evidence and consigns all who disagree as on a greased slide to hell.
That attitude comes across clearly in many of your postings in terms of what acceptable evidence is.
You are not some global or galactic Pontifical Supreme Court in charge of defining what is acceptable evidence--except for your own sensibilities--with all their flaws.
It's good.
Your generalities are meaningless and unwarranted. Cite a specific example from something I’ve actually posted or stop with the unsubstantiated accusations.
Oh my, I don’t think that analogy is going to help one little bit.
Btw, Q is a Catholic.
Hopefully he won’t see what you wrote. A, that doesn’t describe him, and B, he wouldn’t like it.