Then let him say "I have no evidence". That will save a lot of time.
People see what they believe. When I cite evidence and I have cited tens of thousands specific pieces of evidence and could cite far far more if I were challenged or anyone chose to discuss this instead of their own beliefs. Evidence that supports my theory is handwaved, gain said and turned into strawmen. I am "corrected" often which is when instead of arguing against the evidence I present, believers in Darwin and the status quo merely state THEIR OWN BELIEF about its meaning. People very very rarely actually address any of my evidence OR any of my arguments. They see reality through the kaleidoscope of their own beliefs so of course my beliefs and my evidence is distorted and confused into a misty aura with no meaning except to those suffering from the inability to accept modern beliefs.
I don't expect you to see this either. I've cited dozens of times and then it is quoted in the very post I am told I have no evidence at all. I consider much of my evidence to be profound because it flies in the face of belief and points in only one direction; the direction of reality. Here is an example I'm sure you'll recognize since I've posted it so many times with no significant contradiction. You still won't see it but you should recognize the words because they've been posted so many times. History doesn't start for 1200 years after the invention of writing. This is a fact and all facts are evidence. All facts should be explained by prevailing theory or the very least no fact should contradict prevailing theory. Some anomalies are only natural because of the reductionistic nature of science and model formation in each individual. But this fact (go back and find it since you missed it many times before) contradicts everything we believe. It is not explicable in terms of the models and theory that comprise the status quo. The first thing people would have recorded would be ancient stories, history, and the knowledge they acquired to do everything they did (science and/ or metaphysics. Yet nothing at all survives. Nothing was copied for preservation. Nothing survives in whole or in part. Indeed there are blank pieces of paper all the way back to the invention of writing but nothing that is written on for many centuries. Then most of the writing that does survive is indecipherable gobblety gook that modern "theory" actually believes is incantation!!! I should not need to point out the illogic of this so invite the reader to find it himself. Scholars believe that the only bits of writing that survive are representative of all the writing and imply the reason for the invention of writing was to create lists. It simply never occurred to them that what survived is a result of the mother of all sample bias. They pull things out of tombs and "temples" and extrapolate it as representative of a culture and society. They interpret and translate everything in terms of later beliefs nd then assume the writing is the earliest example of superstition. It's all nonsense. People really do make sense but only in terms of premises and OUR premises are at fault.
I have shown massive amounts of evidence to prove this. Some of this evidence is equally profound but it is equally invisible to believers. The exact same "symbols" are inscribed in caves all over the world. This is wholly inexplicable in terms of all applicable theory but is fully consistent, even expected by my theory which was developed BEFORE these symbols were even known.
Across the board all evidence and experiment agrees with my theory but not only is this invisible to believers but the very words are invisible. They are brushed off in the parsing. They don't even make it to consciousness. If the words are seen thy are gainsaid. No, nobody has ever cited an experiment that contradicts any part of my theory. Yes, there have been earlier incarnations of the theory that were disproven by readers but NOT the current version.
Here's another bunch of words which is not parsed properly, gainsaid, ignored, handwaved, and twisted into something that can be dismissed out of hand. Most won't see it and will just think I'm repeating myself again! Reality occurs in events. On every level from the microscopic to big bangs everything is an event that occurred due to the logic (laws) of nature that applied to initial conditions. But Darwin thinks that change in species is different. He actually believes that tiny changes accumulate until no new species arises (every individual is the same species as its parents). His position springs naturally from his many assumptions I've listed many times even in the last several days. He could have have come up with no other wrong conclusion than the wrong conclusion he invented. He believes nature has some deficiency that stops her from making one fit individual after another. Nature isn't alive or conscious but nature isn't like humans who waste lives, effort, and wealth. Individuals are all different because nature "knows" that to survive bottlenecks and to propagate life that there have to be different genes in each species. This is almost certainly what all those unused genes are in the genome; directions for life to survive under any conditions whatsoever. Short of being entirely consumed in a supernova or crashing into a red giant odds are good nothing could extinguish life on earth.
But I know in advance there will be no discussion of any facts because my evidence is invisible. It will be parsed wrong, hand waved, and turned into straw. People will play word games.
If anyone wants to discuss the evidence I'm your man. Don't expect a reply to word games or lectures. I don't agree with your premises (the premises) of modern science so I'm interested only in logic, experiment, and fact. I wouldn't mind some "evidence" if common sense is used in its citation. Interpretations of fact based on failed or disputed paradigms are irrelevant.