[tacticalogic]

So what you are saying is "the evidence in the article that you don't accept is not evidence"? The world does not revolve around you (so to speak)

Nor does it revolve around Mr. Wells. If "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", and I don't see any evidence then there is no evidence, whether you and Mr. Wells choose to believe that it exists or not.

When you declared that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", you made it purely subjective. There is no longer any discernible "right" answer to whether there is evidence or not. I don't agree with this, but it appears to be the only definition of "evidence" you will accept, so there you have it.

[Last Visible Dog]

If "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", and I don't see any evidence then there is no evidence

That is not what that statement means - it is a qualitative statement - we are debating a quantitative statement from you ("there is no evidence")

"in the eyes of the beholder" means qualitative judgment varies from person to person - not quantitative judgment as you are trying to argue.