How does that in anyway show an inability to address their points? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Since we are talking about an empirical fact (whether or not you can adress their points), absence of evidence is (weak) evidence of absence. You not adressing the points is more likely to happen in a world where you cannot adress their points than in a world where you can. Unless you are not actually interested in honest discussion, that is.
Honestly, I'm simply not interested in discussion. I posted this last June. I haven't seen anything that disproves the post. All the pictures posted of clouds confirm my position (thanks!) and all the pictures of trees just look like they stuck a floodlight behind the tree before snapping the photograph.
So, if my apathy to argue gives your imagination the perception of a perch on which to declare victory, then go ahead. As an aside, it's nice to know that you've turned the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" axiom on it's head, though. You should probably try and get that published in a journal or something so you get credit for it.