someone else wants to be true. It's kind of like quoting from a website that advocates for homeopathic medicine as evidence that homeopathy is real and true.
Advocacy websites are never good sources of information. They advocate for things, so their bias is clearly toward whatever that website advocates for.
If you want information you will like about religion, you can go to religionnews.com to bolster your argument. Never mind that there is a strong bias there. If you want information about the Egyptian captivity, you can go to a biblearchaeology website and it will tell you that you are correct and that there was such a captivity. Bias.
The Internet is chock-full of biased websites with a story to tell and something to sell. You can find anything you want to support any idea you might have, no matter how cockamamie that idea is.
Advocacy websites fool lots of people lots of the time, because they confirm their visitors biases. "It must be true, because it agrees with me."
That is how "There is no evidence that the captivity did not occur" gets translated, somehow into "The captivity did occur, because there is no evidence that it did not." Which gets translated into, "Authorities confirm that the captivity occurred." Of course, it also means, "There is no evidence to support the Egyptian captivity."
It's advocacy and confirmation bias at work. Oldest thing in the book (or the website).
= new reply since forum marked as read