[blowfish]

Both sides have the same physical evidence. The presuppositions of the "interpreter" of the physical evidence is what is in question.

Well, it's true - both sides have the physical evidence: they're surrounded by it.
I should have said "One side has a coherent explanation for the physical evidence, the other side doesn't."

Is that more to your liking?

[LiteKeeper]

I should have said "One side has a coherent explanation for the physical evidence, the other side doesn't."

"coherent" is a relative term, again based on your presuppositions. No, your response is not more to my liking. You have proved nothing by the statement you have made.