Permit me to rephrase... Someone has to present a case. My only case so far is that there is no case, there is no value, this is un-creationist & regurgatory.

Permit me to rephrase... Someone has to present a case. My only case so far is that there is no case, there is no value, this is un-creationist & regurgatory. We can both accept that my premise might not be right. Who has the obligation here to present evidence? Is having no good evidence but maybe no clear negatives an acceptable counter to my claims? Are there more forward stances I need to consider & deal with? Or is your whole premise about as it seems, a shade-throwing you-don't-know "trust-me"? What would possibly satisfy you, how far would I have to go trying stuff before you could say, OK, yeah, your right, it's indeed predominantly mostly bunk? Who do you think has the decision? Do you have evidence to contribute? Is lack of anti-evidence, the possibility of maybe all you want? How do we decide this?