Twice I asked you some specific points, you never answered, I don't blame you for that because that's your choice and I respect it. On my side I only answer with specifics when I estimate that this can somehow enhance the debate.
In that sense, I value much more the likelihood of two competing hypotheses than any prior opinion one may have on them. It is clear to me that strong prior opinions (that some have on CF) represent too much a barrier to allow a constructive debate.
The issue is not prior opinions, but whether it is possible to evaluate evidence regardless of prior opinion. After all, where prior evidence is not equally balanced, a rational person will have a (possibly strong) prior opinion.
Anyway if I (on balance do not respond to arguments with specifics more than those with a different view to me you would be wise to treat my views lightly, and vice versa. that is why in this case I think Cude makes the most convincing case.