Reply #90: See, in both those situations you are relying on cherry-picked scraps of "evidence,"

[Basileus Basileon]

and discarding the massive amounts of research that suggest that both propositions are bunk. While I am "open" to both theories, that means I assume both are false and am willing to be convinced otherwise. What you have posted is wholly unconvincing. I find that both have an inadequate evidence base, and so reject both.

Any good standard of evidence would require the majority of the evidence to support an idea. A minimum would at least require the majority of the evidence not to reject it. Latching on to only that which supports your theory is a game for pseudoscientists and woo-woos.