One day you may understand, Krash661, but today does not seem to be that day. Every time you ask someone has explained to you, and then you ask again. But to explain again, in the vain hope that some semblance of understanding might creep through your humourous veneer of arrogance: each person decides for the themself whether they themselves find evidence convincing or not. No one decides for people as a whole, and what people believe has no impact upon the reality of the matter. In judging the evidence in such a manner they do not say "this is therefore reality" but simply it is what they believe about the evidence and thus what they believe about reality. Most wouldn't even take a black or white position on the matter but conclude that while it the claim is and remains a possibility, the evidence is simply not compelling enough to personally conclude that it is true, although when evidence becomes compelling they will believe it to be true. But their belief does not alter the reality of it. They might find the evidence compelling and that which is claimed through the evidence might simply not be real, or they might find the evidence not convincing yet the claim is true in reality. Is any of this sinking in yet, or are you just going to hand wave about it being "hypocritical shenanigans" from a "want-to-be intellect"? Why what would be an extraordinary claim? Remind me, please?