Evidence consists of facts not opinions. I don't know what you mean by "It doesn't mean I have to agree with it". Now maybe you won't agree with my analysis of the evidence, but in regard to the evidence itself, there is nothing to agree or disagree unless you want to doubt the very existence of the evidence I would present.
So I am not asking what evidence you will ignore, I am asking what evidence you will "accept". In other words what kind of evidence would it take to prove my assertion if I could prove it by the evidence you demand?
Tell me that, and I will strive to produce the evidence that will prove my statement. If you are not willing to indicate what evidence would convince you, then what is the use in anyone trying to prove anything to you?
You are a skeptic. That is fine. But if you want someone to prove something to you, you will need to specify the type and level of proof that will convince you. Otherwise we are just wasting our time here (which frankly I think we are).
Opinions are often used as "evidence."
So I am not asking what evidence you will ignore, I am asking what evidence you will "accept"
It's like money. Some money is worthless even tough it's money. I consider all evidence. I don't accept all of it.
Before this ends up being another dead-end waste of time, let's go bakc to the beginning. You wrote:
And I repsonded:
Now, you can choose to defend your position or to ignore my question. Thank you.