You talk about the case for or against evidence of the Exodus in the same context as dealing with one's spouse about lying until proven innocent. You freely go back and forth between the two concepts, with the implication that they are synonymous.
That is a straw man and an ad hom rolled into one.
"Well, I don't have an argument why one should be skeptical of evidence of extraordinary claims, so I'll move it to something personal about the poster's relationship with his wife."
It looked like lying was assumed in the Exodus Account before evidence was evaluated.
It was being equated to a contemporary fictional movie, which is a hugh stretch, and clearly false.
That is about the worst approach to science I have ever seen!
It looks like a purely anti-supernatural bias.
That is how it appeared anyway.
And that is not even remotely science, or scientific inquiry.
The Exodus Account has to be evaluated from the evidence, not in spite of the evidence.
That my friend is good science.
Assuming the conclusion before evidence is studied is not science.
That is personal bias.
It is a false and unethical practice.
It is a poor approach to all of life.
Including marriage relationships.
I am sure you agree!
Whatever it is, it is not science.
And you do know all of this.
So why would you do this, knowing it is wrong?