It's pretty obvious in this context what it means to "reject evidence,"

Indeed, and that context happens to include this question preceding the first one you quoted there:

And do you agree that there exists weak evidence for the existence of God?

which implies that you thought there was a significant chance that I didn't believe there was evidence of God. (Otherwise, why would you have bothered asking?) So when you subsequently implied that I 'reject such evidence' of God, it was quite reasonable to interpret it as literally just that - rejecting the evidence qua evidence - because you had just implied that you were open to the possibility that I denied evidence of God in general.

Anyway, I didn't make an issue out of your evasiveness until somebody made an issue out of the length of our exchange.

That's nice.

Would you like to see some evidence? I'm happy to provide it.

Never say this again. It's a cheap, time-wasting dodge.

If you actually have evidence, simply lay it out as soon as it might be relevant.

Your debating style resembles more an interrogation than a friendly discussion, and this I consider rude, but it may be only my personal feeling.

More importantly, you deliberately derailed the debate about racial differences in IQ asking about cupholder's religious beliefs, while being apparently not interested in the question. It seemed to me that the purpose of the long debate was only to prepare positions for your final argument again about racial differences in IQ. This is also on my list of rude behaviour. I don't like people asking questions in order to show that the opponent can't answer appropriately.

If I ask a question and am not satisfied with the answer, the default is to suppose that the other person didn't understood properly the question and my job is to explain it, or possibly give some motivation for it. Repeating the same question with only minimal alterations I consider aggresive. Want a quote?

But by what standard do you reject such evidence? 09:04:15AM

By what standard do you evaluate this evidence so as to reach your atheistic conclusion notwithstanding this evidence for the existence of God? 12:21:53PM

And by what standard would you decide whether the evidence is sufficiently strong? 04:21:39PM

I understand that you interpret it as a result of evasiveness of your opponent, but I simply disagree here. Cupholder has given two answers

Namely, can I fit the idea of God existing/homeopathy working/alien abduction into my broader understanding of the world, or would it require overturning practically my whole understanding of how reality works?

It is just that the evidence would have to be strong enough to go head-to-head with basic physics.

which I find quite appropriate given your question. If you don't, you should explain the question in more detail, because it is unclear. You have basically asked "what's your epistemology", itself a fine question, but full answer could fill a book. So either you wanted some specific answer, and the question was not clear - you should have asked more specifically. Or you didn't want a specific answer, and since I don't think you expected cupholder to explain his rationality in full detail, I must conclude that the question was merely rhetorical, which brings me back to rudeness.

Yeah, I don't know how to update on meta analyses anymore. I do know though that Ruston and Jensen cite it uncritically (albeit deceptively, they just acknowledge the low correlation and move on) which may be evidence that Shuey (who did the meta analysis) is being honest.

Edit: The other thing I don't trust is that the Shuey analysis of the 18 studies was done in 1966! I'm not sure studies on race from that period are reliable in either direction.

At the time I wrote the comment I recall some piece of evidence that I thought countered this very low positive correlation enough that it made sense to say "zero net evidence" but I honestly don't remember what my reasoning was.

We should note btw that the existence of a positive correlation with skin tone doesn't mean some of the IQ gap is genetic. There have been studies demonstrating social advantages to having light skin.

You're obviously right on both counts. Edited.