[Right Wing Professor]

What I was trying to get from you all along is which one, both, or neither is worded correctly in your consistently inconsistent application of "science speak".

The only problem is in your amazing obtuseness about fundamental logic, which equates the non-existence of a concrete entity, which exists regardless of discovery (notoriously difficult to prove) with the non-existence of evidence, evidence being a human construct which does not exist qua evidence until discovered.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The only problem is in your amazing obtuseness about fundamental logic, which equates the non-existence of a concrete entity, which exists regardless of discovery (notoriously difficult to prove) with the non-existence of evidence, evidence being a human construct which does not exist qua evidence until discovered."

I wish I had stated it that succinctly. You said exactly what I was thinking, but didn't say. :)