Matt Slick fails to show that torturing babies is objectively immoral

Matt Slick of Carm seems to think the baby torture example just rips Jesus out of the sky and slams him into the face of all atheists:

Matt Slick: The proof that moral absolutes exist is in the statement I gave you: "It is always wrong for people to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure." 

No, he who asserts, must prove.  YOU are asserting it is always wrong for people to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure, so YOU have the burden.  Provide the reasons why you think such act is always wrong.

If you can falsify that statement, you have proven me wrong.

There is nothing to falsify if you set forth a proposition and offer nothing to support it.

Let's throw your logic back in your face:  "It's always wrong to count nickels on Tuesdays solely for personal pleasure".  I give this moral maxim, like you gave yours, without supporting argument.  Do you have anything to refute?   Of course not.  So if I were to say "If you want to tell me that it is not a moral absolute, then all you need to do is falsify it. Go ahead", that would actually be dishonest, in that it gives the false impression that I have fulfilled my burden of proof and now the monkey is on your back.

Therefore YOU, Matt Slick, are being dishonest when you talk so confidently about how the atheist is free to falsify.  YOU are the one asserting your moral maxim.  YOU therefore cannot view your opponent as morally or intellectually obligated to "refute" it unless and until you provide supporting argument as to why you think such baby torture is always wrong.

Or is this the part where you confess that you don't really know what the fuck to do if your opponent doesn't automatically agree that you've fulfilled your own burden?

You have not falsified the statement. I have not found any atheist that has falsified the statement yet.

You just did.  Hello, my name is Barry Jones.

  If you want to tell me that it is not a moral absolute, then all you need to do is falsify it. Go ahead.

Correction, if I want to tell you its not a moral absolute, I can achieve that goal by pointing out that you never supported your premise.  Your bare statement that the maxim constitutes a moral absolute, certainly doesn't make it so, you are not god, remember?  If so, then you aren't obligating anybody to answer anything until you have supported your maxim with argument.

Again, there is nothing to falsify, you've simply set forth an unsupported moral maxim, as if its truth were so obvious that it did not need to be supported.   I say that stems from your other irrational beliefs, such as Calvinism (i.e., presuppositionalism, questioning the truth of Christian claims is absolutely forbidden, and the futility of non-Christian thought is an untouchable icon of absolute truth).

Once you start revealing the secret you are guarding so closely (the reasons you think such baby torture is always immoral, you are the claiming so that's YOUR burden) the more you will cease looking like a frightened barking child and the more you will sound like a professional philosopher who is willing to put all his cards on the table.