Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper
In a science forum, if asking for evidence is a conversation stopper, then the conversation was pointless.
People can come up with all kinds of ideas, but if they have no evidence to support them, there's no reason for anyone else to give them any credence. For every unevidenced idea out there, there is an equally unevidenced, but opposite claim or idea. How do you choose between them?