Brendon at Respondeo dicendum attempts to debunk the claim that...

...incredible claims require incredible evidence.

But who actually says, "incredible claims require incredible evidence?" It makes no sense. Incredible claims certainly require credible evidence, while credible claims as far as they require evidence at all must also rely on credible evidence. Incredible evidence can even cast doubt on credible claims to say nothing of incredible claims.

I have heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This makes a certain amount of sense. For example a person making the claim that God does not exist would be required to furnish credible evidence, yes, but extraordinary evidence also. Indeed: if there were ordinary (credible) evidence that God does not exist the matter would already have been disposed of.