Actually, evidence can support contradictory and opposing conclusions. That was the quality of the evidence and the quality of the interpretation of said evidence matter. It's also why I as for "good evidence" and not just "evidence". Let me give a example from an actual call in T.V. show. A lady calls in claiming she can prove the existence of God. He proof? She was driving down the road and low tire pressure warning light went on. She wasn't close to home was worried about being able to safely drive her vehicle, so she prayed to God for a solution. At the next exit she pulled into a gas station, and the gas station attendant aired up her tires for he. This was her "proof" God existed. I'd seriously question both the quality of this evidence and her interpretation, and if it's anywhere nearly sufficient to prove her extraordinary claim.
That's the issue with so much of what theist consider "evidence". They present poor interpretations of poor evidence, and often, it's the worst possible kind of evidence, that which cannot be independently verified. This evidence is even worse than that in the example above, because even though her argument is so terrible, at least we could verify the existence of the gas station and gas station attendant if we cared to go interview him just after the event.
I agree with a number of statements in this post, and especially the first statement.
