The Creationists' Nightmare

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Afraid, my ass. How old are you, boy?

Everything you say is a joke. Are you declaring yourself a Poe? Because if you are, you're the best Poe I've ever seen.

And if you are not, that should tell you something about the outrageous idioticy of everything you say that isn't meant to be a joke.

But it's clear to me that you are merely now claiming that it's a joke because you know you've been backed into a corner you can't get out of. So tell us all about your little conversation with gawd, and why you didn't ask him to come do magic tricks for us and prove he's real.

God takes care of His own business,

ANd your imaginary friend told you this? Tell us all about your conversation with it. Tell us what it looked like. Did it ride the bus to your house, or a taxi? Seems like it would be rather difficult in this day and age to get a driver's license, what with having no social security number or anything..

I do not need to ask Him to do things for you.

You ask it inane shit all the time, I reckon. "Oh, please, please please, don't let me fail this test I didn't study for... oh please please please, don't let mommy catch me fapping over pictures of eight year old boys...", etc. The usual x-tard requests. Just think -- you could ask it this one thing, next time it comes over to your house, and you could save my soul. Now wouldn't that be worth it?

In a corner, now that must be a joke good one kido.

Yeah. As in put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

---

The "I don't know, therefore God" stance isn't the best one to take.

Evolutionist: "I can't find the scientific proof yet, but until then I will believe there is some."

For every 'God of the Gaps' there is a 'Naturalism of the Gaps' to match. We haven't found 99.9% of the fossil record, but people still hold out for naturalistic solutions to life. They may not ever appear. Both sides have to assume a stance, and either one could easily accuse the other of lacking proof. Evolution is a history and response theory, meaning it moulds to the closest naturalistic solution, rather than being confirmed by fairly-drawn evidence. Every time a contradiction comes up, scientists alter the theory to include another yet-to-be-proven assertion. Much of the 'evidence' you see is really criteria. Evolutionists need the earth to be old, so they use long half-life techniques. They know all energy came from one source and one beginning, so they formulate a "Big Bang." How many discoveries in science were obtained by an objective baseboard? We look at the universe and try to figure out how it works by observing it. We can't study the laws governing the universe, and we can't get outside for an objective, unfiltered view. When we use a microscope to study another microscope, we are limited. Knowledge is always at net zero. We explain the natural with our opinion of the natural (wherever that came from) and dismiss God as soon as we find he doesn't fit into the little touchable box labeled "nature". Objectivism, or Absolute Truth, requires a transcending standard. God is the only transcending standard humans know about. Not only does he have grounds to be considered, but the existence of a subjective reality indicates the existence of an objective one--therefore he should be considered, and deeply.

Absolute proof you don't know dick about how science works. Nice.