Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Neil Jones]

A lot of people, sadly, don't seem to have understood the fundamental point I 
was making.  I'll make it as simple as I can. Once again, logic is blind to 
people's feelings so don't get angry.

First of all discard all value judgements. In this argument I make none.

"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" is a statement of  
fundamental logic. It is true in any language, in any culture ,anywhere on 
earth or elsewhere in the universe. PERIOD.

When the IBBA makes an argument which violates this statement they 
demonstrate the use of a logical fallacy PERIOD.

If someone uses a fundamental logical fallacy in a scientific debate they are 
doing one of two things.

Demonstrating incompentance in understanding the basics of science.

OR 

Attempting to mislead.

 
Either way their argument is invalid. PERIOD.

It is therefore the case that NABA is fully justified in rejecting the 
argument PERIOD.

-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl