Steven Hales is taking this in the wrong direction at every turn. Here is one false example he portrays.
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
It should be
Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
Person 1 States "Then prove they don't exist"
Why do you get to define the parameters of logic when they were already defined before you came along? Proving a negative is pretty easy, if you know how to think.
For example, I can prove that the universe is not deterministic, even though cause and effect exist. This can easily be demonstrated by the various experiments regarding the evolution of single celled organisms and how they adapt to new environments.
You are 100% wrong about this, you should just shut up.