I think that is fair and reasonable.

if I make a claim without any logic or evidence to back it up, I wouldn't expect everyone to automatically accept it as truth, either. When you do that, you should expect to have your views challenged.

Of course, I am happy to have my beliefs challenged. My main point in this thread is that the challenge should not be, "You're wrong unless you can cite scientific evidence to back that up," it should be "I disagree, here is my alternative view, and here is the evidence I have to back what I say, what sort of evidence do you have on your side?"