[Hugh the Scot]

I understand all of that simply enough, yet it seems that your assertion was that the author's conclusions are absurd. The fact that the entire universe hasn't been searched, while obvious, isn't really evidence that his conclusions are absurd.

We're both arguing the same principle; except that the authors POV is supported by 100% of the current evidence.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...I understand all of that simply enough, yet it seems that your assertion was that the author's conclusions are absurd. The fact that the entire universe hasn't been searched, while obvious, isn't really evidence that his conclusions are absurd.
We're both arguing the same principle; except that the authors POV is supported by 100% of the current evidence..."

It seems you fail to understand the implications of the example I gave using looking for McD's in Antarctica. In that example MY position that no McD's exist on Earth is 100% supported by a search of Antarctica. Is my position "absurd"? Yes, as we both KNOW it to be incorrect. The lesson to apply is that when you KNOW that your area of direct observation is either SMALL or SKEWED, it is absurd to draw broad conclusions from it.

You only have to show ONE counter-example to a line of reasoning to prove it faulty.