I said there is absolutely no evidence, within my presumed definition of evidence where the term actually means something. If one is to expand the term to mean virtually anything, then of course there is "weak evidence" (though I would contend it means just as little as it did before).

Your definition is just as bad because it is too strict.

If you "know" your conclusion first, then you will necessarily distort the evidence to substantiate your belief in that "known" conclusion. Holding a conclusion as forgone prior to having substantiation creates a filter through which all evidence is twisted.

Agreed, but my point is more that if you had stronger evidence that your conclusion is true, the weaker evidence will also support that conclusion even though by itself it doesn't.

Split more semantic hairs to avoid actual debate, why don't you? My point was actually that your example was non-causal and non-unique. Of course, why address the substance of my argument; far easier to pick on the tangent.

I just helped correct your statement. I clearly didn't ignore your argument. I had a follow up sentence that continued with the rest of your argument. You took my one sentence and attacked the tangent.

Evidence does not become religion through dilution; it becomes "proof" of religion through dilution. That is the only way religion can attempt to legitimate itself. My point is that at the point where evidence is so diluted, it means nothing to say there is "evidence" supporting the validity of the religious claim.

I guess I am using the Ken Ham definition.

A thing can be proven within probability, and my express point all along has been that religion cannot be proven probable. You have not effectively disputed that; semantics rather than substance seem your game.

I agree that religion isn't provable (depending on how scientific the religion is), but screwing up words and complaining about the other guy seems to be your game.

That people believe something to be true does not make it true. People do not need anything to believe in God other than a disposition to delusion and recalcitrance to logic; that hardly stands in the favour of religion or its foundation in reason. The evidence must be unique to constitute an actual legitimization of religion.

I didn't say that religion is being legitimized. I think they are "explaining" how they are correct. I agree, it does have to be unique in order for legitimacy. That bothers me too.

That is all good and well, but you have taken my initial comments out of their original context in which I was not talking with you yet. Which I am quite done explaining repeatedly to no effect.

The only context was referencing an old book. But, I can see how you were only targeting religious people.

I have already explained why, when an explanation was not even really necessary. You are harping on irrelevant observations and personal attacks rather than addressing the substance of my argument. This strongly suggests you have no actual substantive response.

What the hell are you talking about? You are the one who attacked people who use an old book. I didn't attack anyone.

I don't actually disagree with your argument. My whole problem with your post really is semantics. It is kind of funny that you call me out on it.