...which can't very well happen if it isn't a thing. So your current tack seems to be self-contradictory.
It's also true we have no evidence Russell's Teapot doesn't exist. Lack of evidence of a contradiction isn't a good argument for something. I've pointed this out before, and you seem to be conveniently ignoring it as you insist on using exactly that as a basis for your idea. That which can be asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence.