I have a problem with 'evidence' when people state that the absence of evidence means that a thing does not exist.

The problem is thus:

Evidence is only as good as the means of detecting it at that time.

Does a thing recently shown to exist only exist after the evidence is found ?
Does evidence bring a thing into being?

NO and NO

Does the thing for which evidence is required exist before and in the absence of that evidence.

yes and no - depends what it is.

Evidence does not bring a thing into existance but the absence does NOT mean a thing exists until proven to not exist.

Thus altogether relying on evidence or 'lack thereof as a means of defining whether a thing exists or not is fallacious.

EDIT: I made a VERY significant typo when I wrote this ! Please read again in context intended.

Hey what evidence is there that sderenzi is not the same as TOR and is not just a name used by her to say "I love you" to herself in every other thread and help ruin threads posting complete garbage?