LOL!
wait... were you serious?
Yes, dead serious. I mean, if you guys had any proof, it might explain why most of America doesn't believe you.. er, did he say that right...
There is a difference between having evidence and having evidence that supports your case. When the evidence can be read to support just about anything until you start spinning it... then it isn't evidence for your position, it is merely incidental.
I remember when "annual rings" in ice cores were "evidence" for evolution. Then it turned out there was nothing annual about the rings in those cores. The evidence for "annual" was actually evidence for warmer/colder periods - nothing more. Anyone wanting to look into this need only study up on "Glacier Girl". So "annual rings" were once "evidence" for long periods of time - or so we were told - with no proof of this mind you.. just a "theory". But then there's nothing stopping one from postulating multiple postulates as support for another postulate and leaving no proof or solid grounding for any or all of it. Evos say, I think, therefore it is so. Some of us out here require a bit more proof than that before buying a car or a laundry soap.. what moron thought they could sell this claptrap on less...