I never said that: but then, it's always easier to rebut what somebody didn't say.
I said "They need evidence," and "Using evidence, follow the possible chains of necessary and sufficient causes and effects, and see where they lead."
If you can't construe somebody's written statements accurately, you can't have much of a discussion.
“I never said that: but then, it’s always easier to rebut what somebody didn’t say.”
Put the whole sentence from the quote in there if you are going to claim it’s not accurate:
“If you want to believe everything that someone says they saw, with no corroborating evidence, then that is your prerogative.”
You have been arguing that I should accept the testimony of these witnesses, with no corroborating evidence, haven’t you?
If not, then what are you going on about, exactly? You made a dispute with a figure of speech referencing what type of evidence, ordinary or extraordinary, should be required to confirm a claim. Yet, nobody has even produced any ordinary evidence to confirm this claim.