[tacticalogic]

You really don't get it. Even if you don't agree, it is still evidence. The point is he did provide evidence therefore you are not allowed to be intellectually lazy (or dishonest) and claim he provided no evidence. As for the "personal attack" rambling - it does not make sense - try again.

That he presents it as evidence does not make it so. There are objective criteria for what does and does not constitute evidence. As far as I'm concerned if it doesn't meet those criteria then it isn't evidence. Deal with it.

[Last Visible Dog]

That he presents it as evidence does not make it so.

True. But just because you think it is not evidence, does not make it so.

Let's put it this way: Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.