If absence of proof is not proof of absence, but absence of evidence is evidence of absence, what makes proof different from evidence?
Proof is absolute, evidence is probabilistic.
Example: we currently have no evidence supporting the existence of planets orbiting stars in other galaxies, because our telescopes are not powerful enough to observe them. Should we take this as evidence that no galaxy except ours has planets around its stars?
No, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence if evidence is impossible, but it is evidence of absence if evidence is possible but absent.
Proof is absolute, evidence is probabilistic.
No, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence if evidence is impossible, but it is evidence of absence if evidence is possible but absent.
(try saying that quickly 3 times :)