"We seem to have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes scientific evidence. For me. scientific evidence requires repeatable observations or measurements."
The definition you cite for "scientific evidence" is a good definition for "confirmed data" whose implications may not yet have been used as "evidence" for a point of view. Sometimes good data may lie a-mouldering while under-funded research programs lie dormant.
After all I have written on this forum, it is odd (though consistent with your combatively rhetorical habits of scientific discourse) that you imply I hold a cavalier attitude toward scientific evidence. Not so. However, I do hold that a definition for scientific evidence includes preliminary observations which may be overturned upon further investigation. If this were not so, we would be declaring that all our "evidence" is sacred and will never be overturned. The idea that evidence may be later interpreted correctly is something I had written about a few days ago. Did you read it?
At http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/30450.shtml I had written:
"...the Scientific Evidence for the Spiritual Realm is right before your eyes
-- but depends on how you define it.
Scientific Evidence for many things in the physical universe was scarce but DID exist in
the observations and arguments of early scientists. Even though Democritus was unable to describe the atom accurately, he was right about the idea of exceedingly small units
making up larger chunks of matter.
Similarly, Scientific Evidence for the spiritual realm is present in the observations and arguments of early spiritual scientists. Frequently what they say is not destined to be
borne out by findings in a future time better understanding, but they are on to something...."