>>47
No.
There is something called the "argument from ignorance". It has this format: x has not been demonstrated, therefor x is false. This is a logical fallacy. You can look it up. People say "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" because it is correct, and mildly cute. It doesn't mean you have to accept the truth of something that hasn't been demonstrated true; it means you don't have logical justification for denying it simply because there's a lack of evidence. This is unrelated to assumption. In the American judicial system, we assume someone is innocent until proven guilty. Assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty does not mean they actually are innocent. If OJ murdered Nicole, and is never proven guilty, he is assumed innocent by the system, but that doesn't mean he is actually innocent. Courts err (and I use "err" very purposefully) on the side of caution, because we'd rather not imprison innocent people.
Also,
>>44
Fucking retard.