everything yet to be discovered, "is" to be inferred as not existing?to this....
Yes. everything and anything "yet to be discovered" does not (and cannot) presently exist as "evidence".and then "implied" that they are one in the same, you were just putting my words into "plain English and dead common usage" as you put it? But in reality, if they were in your mind equivalent then why the need to change the wording? One might suspect an attempt to pawn the mutated (redefined) version off as an identical copy of the original.
No. You changed the wording by attempting to remove the word "evidence" from the discussion which, afterall, YOU started by asserting that the claim "there is no scientific evidence" is "unqualified" with respect to the possibility that evidence might be found to exist in the future. Or that presently known facts might later be recognized to have evidentiary value.
Apparently you dropped the word "evidence" so you could redeem your originally false complaint via the pointless tautology that things that have not been discovered, but do exist, do exist.
Yeah, things that do exist, do exist, whether they've been discovered or not. Big deal. But they can't possible be "evidence" in an undiscovered state.
Geez. It's not like this is complicated.