No, your “evidence” in this case is nothing more than the writings of scriptures and literature, all of which are second-hand reports which may or may not be true.
Keep telling yourself that. Nope, my reports are from my own scientific tradition of consciousness researchers and metaphysicians who have proven their assertions and been validated over and over again throughout our history by yogis. I have personally validated the scientific logic as to why what they say is possible and have found it to be reasonable. As supplimentary evidence we have the hard empirical evidence from quantum physics, where by the way we are indeed teleporting objects today. The current technology only allow for microscopic objects to be telepored, but theoretically we can teleport any object of any size - including a human.
About a century of research into parapsychology, that is the effects of mind on matter have proven that this is a real phenomenona. The mind can control matter. Duh, isn’t that obvious from how we can control our body 
I told you before I a man of science. I go where the scientific evidence takes me. In my hands I have the consciousness research and metaphysics research from my own tradition, and the hard empirical scientific research, as well new consciousness research from modern science to prove this is very much real.
In order for you to maintain your delusion that you are enlightened, we need to throw away millenias of research in Yoga and a century of empirical research in modern science.
If you need a man like Jesus Christ to walk on water, or turn water into wine, then what you are interested in is not wisdom, but just the egotism of attaining to power.
Let us add in order for you to maintain your delusion that you are enlightened we have to declare that everybody in the history of the world that has ever shown siddhis is an egomaniac. This list would then include Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Mahavira, Guru Nanak, countless saints, mystics and yogis.
Face it Amir, you put down siddhis, because you don’t have any. The absence of siddhis falsifies your claim to enlightenment. This is why though you say you don’t later on, you resent them. You rile against them.
A map is very different than the space it is describing. In fact, most of the things you will experience through traveling on the land will not be included in your map - the colors of the trees, the sound of the wind or running water, the sun, the moon, you will not find any of these things on the map. A map can only give you a skeleton like model of the territory, but it can never transmit the space itself.
You say the most obvious things. Yes, of course we know the map will not give us the experience of the journey. But what the map will tell us is the the way and the signposts along the way. Now, millenias of consciousness research have produced several maps, of which the most useful and effective is Patanjalis. There are also modern consciousness researchers like Robert Monroe and Ken Wilber, but they are not at the same level of Patanjali, so they can only tell you about the earlier stages.
Patanjali’s map delinates the entire journey from the moment you sit for meditation to the final goal. He identifies many important signposts. Again modern consciousness research has verified his signposts. Indeed, so have I through my own direct experience. I have entered the stage of pratyhara proper about 3 times in my life and indeed it is exactly what he said it was.
Some say that there is a trace of the ego left in nirvikalpa samadhi, others have said that there is no ego left in nirvikalpa samadhi, who is correct ? The Buddhist says that your true nature is Anatman (no-self), the Hindu says that your true nature is Atman (self), who is correct ? You have assumed far too many things just through second-hand knowledge, not understanding that the Way cannot be transmitted through knowledge. What can be transmitted is a method, and a useful model, but not the Truth. For that, you need eyes to see.
This is not a contradictory map, this is contradicatory interpretations of the final goal. Can the absolute be called atman, because it is the highest self of who we are, and yet it is nobodies exclusive self, therefore it is anatman at the same time. This is a philosophical and more so linguistic issue, not an ontological one.
If you want to be fascinated by such superficial tricks, that is your own doing. But that is not my understanding. The siddhis have very little to do with enlightenment, and you can awaken as many powers as your being is capable - and still remain in a deep sleep.
Again you keep telling yourself that. You call a yogis 10-20 years of sadhana they have done and their attainments along the way “superficial tricks” but what do you have to show for yourself? Nothing. Only a fool goes around boasting of their greatness when they nothing to show for it. The wise remain silent and only declare their greatness when they have something to show for it. I would never in a million years say I am enlightened if I could not prove it.
If siddhis have nothing to do with enlightenment, then why would Patanjali say they only come after you reach the first stage of object samadhi? Why would Patanjali say that in order to activate any siddih samyama is required, and samyama only becomes active when you reach object samadhi.
So Patanjali is a liar now, eh?
There is something which cannot arise through training alone and constantly pedaling the wheels of your effort. Effort is needed for nothing more except preparing the space. Once the space is prepared, then to continue pedaling your effort and training would in fact become an obstacle. Revelation is never something that you do - it happens. You receive it without any warning, without even an expectation of when and how it is going to happen. Do not think that just through mechanical training alone, that is enough. There are many yogis who have remained practicing and practicing for their whole life, remaining as blind as they ever were, simply because they were not able to move beyond this simple but entangling barrier, that something much more is needed than just mechanical and repetitive training.
Tell me something I don’t know. Even Yogis who you are calling blind here know that samadhi cannot be forced with effort, but rather it is something which blossoms within you when you create the right space for it to happen. Of course the catch 22 here this requires a lifetime of spiritual training. Training the body so that it can sit still. Training the prana so that it flows smoothely. Training the senses so that you can bring them inwards. Training the focus so that it become one-pointed. This is a lifetime of practice, not just 6 years in the comfort of your home
Like I said at the very very least if you passed stage 1 of Yoga you should be able to control your prana. It takes yogis 10-20 years of intense sadhana to do that alone.
You have assumed that such a thing is possible. There is no such thing as transcending nature, and for a human being to walk on water is just like a man trying to give birth to a woman. Even almost infinite siddhis will not be capable of ever allowing a man to give birth to a woman, or having the sun revolve around the Earth.
You are talking about things which are illogical like a man giving birth or the sun revolving around the earth. I am talking about things which are possible like levitation, teleportation, and we know they are possible, because we can already do them, albeit at a microscopic level, but that is technological issue.
I am not assuming this is possible. I know it is possible. By the way do you know that we are already levitating above the ground? This is because we never really touch the ground, because the electrons in the ground and electrons within our body repulse one another. Do you know that it is possible to generate a subtle force from the quantum field which can push objects up(any objects) we are currently using this technology in nanoengineering.
I am afraid you are ignorant about where science is today. And yet you claim to be all knowing
Do not become entangled in the descriptions of siddhis such as “flying in the sky”, or “walking on water”, particularly when it comes from a culture which has always been highly symbolic, imaginative, and mythological.[/quote]
Don’t talk to me about my culture, because I know my culture better than you do by a wide margin. I already warned you in the past. The text which describes flying and walking on water is neither a poetic text or a mythological text, it is a text on psychology by Patanjali. It is credible as any other text on psychology. Thus it belongs to scientific literature. If it is saying these siddhis take place when one reaches samyama then it is obviously something real.
Let us add: To maintain your delusion of enlightenment, in addition to everything else we have to throw out, we also have to call Patanjali a liar.
There are some yogic texts which have said that through practicing mula bandha, that the yogi conquers death and becomes immortal. If you interpret this as conquering physical death and becoming immortal in the body, then you are just being foolish, and many fools have interpreted it in such a way.
You could remain in the physical body indefinitely if you could conquer the aging process of the body. Lots of scientific research is going on this field.
You say you have no opinions or assumptions, but it is clear you assume many things: you assume physical laws and the impossibility of going against them. You assume that will never be able to control the aging process.
“I already told you why you have such a resentment to siddis - because you don’t have any”
I do not have any resentment to siddhis, or anything in particular. It is just that awakening siddhis is not the way to liberation, and is often a great excuse for your ego to run on a power trip, and has been an excuse for ones ego to run on a power trip. The only difference is that rather than working out of a lust for power towards the outer world, now it has all been channeled towards the inner world. While one was running outwardly like a beggar, now one is running inwardly like a beggar, and in both cases you remain the slave rather than centered as the master. But if you want to speak of siddhis, then to you, perhaps you may be impressed by somebody walking on water. As far as I am concerned, besides wisdom itself, there is no other siddhi which is capable of bringing you into communion with existence.
Even ultimate wisdom is a siddhi and Patanajli mentions it 
It is clear to any reasonable reader that you have resentments to siddhis; you call them superficial tricks, side-effects, you say only egomanicas want them and demonstrate them, you calls yogis who have them blind and you claim all yogis who have experienced them liars, including Patanjali.
Why all this resentment? Like I said it’s because you don’t have any. The very absence of siddhis in you falsifies your claim to enlightenment.
They are side-effects and nothing more. And moreover, if you are just dependent upon borrowed knowledge, then you will be unable to discriminate what is just the mythological and symbolic way of expression which is particular to the culture, what is veiled in occult language so that it is only accessible to the initiate, and what is a scientific documentation of a certain capability.
Again, you pretend this is all symbolic, veiled, occult, esoteric - and yet anybody who has read the Yoga Sutras or the Hatha Yoga Pradapika knows that it is very out in the open, clear and concise, practical.
This isnt exactly a theory. Its my logical deduction, based on the points made by those English poets I pointed out. English poets put a lot of emphasis on “we borrowed so many words from Greece, Rome, and Germans and French” and sarcastically question " so, what is English then? The mischief of drunken Gaels (Celts)?"