[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Graeme Dice
besides your weak opinion what actual proof have you provided ZERO.

I've provided my proof. It's called "the difference between an idea and a physical object".

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.

Once again you are completely and utterly incorrect. The plants with no evidence that once existed are not non-existant. Their evidence is non-existant, but they are not. The evidence is an idea, it is possible to be non-existant and unknown. A physical object cannot have these characteristics, since if it is non-existant, there is no information about it. It can be unknown whether the object is non-existant or not, but that is a completely different phrase from something being "unknown and non-existant", which is a meaningless phrase.

Also the fact that these phrases are used in court documentation shows the phrase is correct and I am right.

No, it shows that you are not smart enough to figure out the difference between an idea and a physical object.