[ShadowAce]

TOE makes no such assumption, ...

OK, then lay out the TOE, and point out the possibility that God may have created everything we see. There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

[Dimensio]

OK, then lay out the TOE, and point out the possibility that God may have created everything we see.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why should that particular deity be "pointed out" as something that "may" have been involved to the exclusion of all other possible deities?

Also, why make mention of a supernatural entity in a context that cannot, in any way, address the supernatural?

There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

Absolute poppycock. Not mentioning an entity is not the same as assuming or stating that said entity is non-existent.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Right Wing Professor]

There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

You've said this once, and were challenged to corroborate it. Now you've merely restated it without corroboration.

[BMCDA]

OK, then lay out the TOE, and point out the possibility that God may have created everything we see.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but that is not a scientific approach. That an omnipotent being (should it exist) could have created everything we see and that even five minutes ago, is trivially true and therefore useless from a scientific point of view. There is no empirical way to either demonstrate the truth of that claim nor to refute it since every observation is compatible with Goddidit.

There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

And there is no mention of God or any other deity in other scientific theories either but somehow I never see creationists/IDers complain about that. So the Theory of Evolution no more assumes the nonexistence of your god than any other theory.
Also, not assuming the existence of a god is not the same as assuming his nonexistence. So science in general doesn't say that God could not have done this or that. At most one can say that science only claims that he need not have done it.

[blowfish]

There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

There's no mention of God in the theory of gravitational attraction either. I guess Newton was assuming the nonexistance of God as well...