They didn't say things should be accepted without evidence. That's a laughably bad-faith reading. They proposed a different standard of evidence that they think is less infeasibly high while still not accepting nonsense. I don't totally agree but it's a reasonable direction to argue.
As for the examples, when they start with "swings over the years" they're clearly taking a long-term perspective, and not trying to claim that modern archaeology will "believe anything" (especially not when their more prominent claim is that modern archaeology believes too little).
> laughably
Ridicule is the refuge of those without an argument. Maybe try standup or Twitter.
Maybe try actually reading what the person you're arguing with is saying and responding to that.
IMHO when we choose ridicule, we destroy that relationship - we make clear we are uninsterested in what the other person has to say or in reason, or even in respecting them on a basic level, and that we lack worthwhile arguments. I stop reading there. I understand the temptation but life is too short.
Oh, so you pattern-matched on a single word and skipped the part where I did, in fact, make an argument. Great work.
But more importantly, where did MarkusQ ridicule you? What's your excuse for not reading what they actually said, but instead imagining something they said that was conveniently easy to criticize?
The important part of my phrase "laughably bad-faith" was the bad-faith part. That's what destroys "that relationship".