"No, I'm stating the obvious. You have thrived on a lack of standard application of the term."
Evidence is evidence. What evidence do you have for your position?
Evidence may be evidence. To argue that it is evidence for something when that is not established to the exclusion of other possibilities is not proper. When multiple possibilities exist, the best you can say is there is evidence for something. It only becomes specific when other possibilities are eliminated.
If you come upon a path in a forest undisturbed, you have evidence of absence. If it's disturbed, you have evidence of disturbance. If the disturbance includes tracks, you have evidence of passing. If the tracks are identifiable, you have evidence of passing by an identifiable critter.
It's the same path. And there is evidence in all cases. But the evidences are not all equal or all applicable.
If you can't identify the tracks you can't say there's evidence of the passing of a cheetah. These differences are not only logical, they are obvious. But it doesn't apparently serve your purposes to deal in that level of specifics because when we break it down that way, you're left empty handed.. get used to it. It's only gonna get worse cause people have had it with the ill treatment of the Evolution elitist religion community. The long reign of intolerant snobbish abuse is comin to an end.