Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[shadow]

1. There is a body of information we have (see list) that clearly claims something and provides reasons to believe that something. 
2. If you want to claim that this is not evidence, then you must demonstrate WHY this is not evidence. See, the burden of proof shifted to you once you denied there was evidence (which is a claim). You now have to explain the bits of information we have (again, see the list). 
3. If you were smart, you would take the more modest position of "the evidence is not compelling".

Do you really think this is an important point to argue? You're saying some decent things in my opinion, but it's not really unreasonable that someone would discard very weak evidence as not being evidence at all. There's a point where evidence goes from meaning nothing to meaning something, and it seems like a semantic difference to insist we include the evidence that really means nothing under the category of evidence.