[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why does requiring a contention to be backed with evidence make me a would-be mind reader?" (me)

---

"It doesn't"

Then why did you say it did?

"But speaking for Tom hints at the use of a crystal ball."

Or maybe it means I know a little bit about what Scientology claims?

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

[AndrewC]

Then why did you say it did?

Because you were speaking for Tom

"But speaking for Tom hints at the use of a crystal ball."

You keep repeating your desire for evidence for my contention. I keep repeating, I'm not going to give you any. It is my contention. You are not required to accept it, just as I am not required to provide you any evidence.

There are no mice on Uranus.