>>18
You're avoiding the point, so I'll correct your statement:
You claim that if there is no evidence for something, and it should be creating huge amounts of evidence, then it doesn't exist period.
Obviously, this is TRUE.
>>19
Poster
>>18 is not correct since, as usual, he made a critical omission.
>>20
We saw plenty of microbial action without a microscope. Ever hear of rotting? This is in extreme contrast to the action of Gilgamesh, which is ZERO. There is simply ZERO evidence, either direct or indirect. Once again, one of you twentysomething fuckwads can't even make a basic argument without a real flaw like that. There are reasons for that, of course; one, your education is faulty; and two, I'm fucking right and there are too many fucking gayfailers who can't admit to the godlessness of the universe.
The fact remains that evidence is still required for assertions, and the more outrageous the assertion (like
"there's a giant alien space monster in the sky watching my behavior" is extremely outrageous), the stronger the need for evidence. Luckily, we have a set of bullshit-cutting tools available to us. One of these tools says:
"Something so fucking large and pervasive must have produced evidence around here somewhere, and it shouldn't be hard to find."
After 1000s of years of searching for such evidence, it's time for you gayfailers to submit to the rational conclusion that there is no Gilgamesh, Jahweh, or incorporeal dragons.