If you make a positive claim then the burden of proof is on you. You must prove that your claim is true by presenting reliable evidence. People who listen to and/or doubt your claim have no responsibility whatsoever to prove that your claim is untrue. Why? Because they can't prove a negative.
In the court of law, if A (prosecutor) claims B (defendant) murdered C (victim) then A must prove two things. First, C has been murdered. And secondly, that B is responsible for C's death. The onus is on A to present eyewitness, DNA report, CCTV recording and other reliable evidence. If B disagrees with the evidence presented what he should do is to rebut each and every evidence. This is the very reason why prosecutor is always the first one to speak in criminal cases.
Similarly, if I say to my friend, ''Hey dude, last night I slept with our lecturer. She has big hairy tits,'' then I must prove that not only i've slept with my lecturer but also that she has big hairy tits. If I don't present any evidence then it's perfectly okay for my friends to reject my claims. Why? Because they don't have any good reason to believe me. Anyone with a fully functioning brain would know i'm lying.
Anyway, it is an undeniable fact that most malaysians are fucking imbecile. They always make positive claims related to science, pseudo-science and supernatural exempli gratia ghost, 9/11 is an inside job, Neil Armstrong never went to moon, faith healing works da da da. I'm tired of their stupid superstition and conspiracy theories. So, to put an end to their endless bullshit I asked for scientific evidence for each of their claims. It's very sad and unfortunate when they presented me with pareidolia cases, hoax, unreliable eyewitness statement and scripture verses etc to prove their claims. When I say ''scientific evidence'' i'm referring to ''evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.'' Evidence that you wants to present to me must be falsifiable and observable. If your claim is so fucking true then I don't think you would have any problem to present me at least one scientific evidence.
I can't wait to rebut your evidence one by one.