[Stultis]

I agree that one might easily "infer" from the statement that none has been found over none exists, but without further clarification, only the author knows what was implied.

It's not implication. It's plain English. "Is" is present tense. "There is no" [noun] means there is (present tense = at present) no [noun]. It doesn't mean their was no [noun], or will be no [noun], or can be no [noun].

Or are you going to explain how it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

[darbymcgill]

It's not implication. It's plain English.

Just because you say it's not an implication doesn't mean it's not.... shall we play dictionary cut and paste?

Would you then imply that everything yet to be discovered, "is" to be inferred as not existing? You may pick your own definition of "is". That six pound gold nugget buried in your back yard is calling your name. Does it exits? hmmmmmm......

Or are you going to explain how it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is?

Just for the record, I'm not the one redefining the terms here... I'm just wishing those of you who try to define them on your terms would please hammer them down our throats consistently... But then that would kill at least half your arguments wouldn't it....

[bobdsmith]

Person A: There is no evidence that pink reindeer live on the moon

Person B: Not correct. A photo of pink reindeer living on the moon would indeed consitute evidence. Therefore you are incorrect to use the definitive claim that there is no evidence that pink reindeer live on the moon.

Person A: There is no evidence that Elvis was taken by aliens

Person B: Not correct. A video recording of Elvis being taken by aliens would indeed be evidence. Therefore you are incorrect to use the definitive claim that there is no evidence that Elvis was taken by aliens.

Person A: So give just one example when I correctly state "There is no evidence that X"? Or are you saying the term is always incorrect and therefore should never be used?

Person B: ...