From: "Gary Britt" 

sigh, it already has been and continues to be ignored.......

Thanks for the compliment however.

Gary

"Ellen K."  wrote in message
news:g4cln19nqtn08bkn28f4qai2hn5mn166ju{at}4ax.com...
> Very well stated but will likely be ignored.
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:40:52 -0500, "Gary Britt"
>  wrote in message
:
>
> >What you describe as what ID says is NOT what I have been commenting upon
> >about ID.   It might be what someone else has said, but it is NOT what I
> >have been saying.
> >
> >I've been merely pointing out that the hypotheses regarding the
development
> >of life from something not alive all the way to modern man are obviously
not
> >based upon direct observation and include many assumptions.  Those
> >assumptions require one to *believe* they are true and correct without
proof
> >that they are true and correct.  That belief in those assumptions is a
form
> >of *faith*.  I'm pointing out that those in the wholly scientific stance
> >have *faith* in their beliefs about the development of life.  That they
have
> >things that they have *faith* are true and correct even though they are
at
> >the very best merely implied/hinted at by some fossil or something
> >somewhere.  These same people then deride *faith* as though its not
> >scientific without even attempting to acknowledge the level of *faith*
they
> >use everyday in their *belief* systems.
> >
> >Gary
> >
> >"Steve Ewing"  wrote in message
> >news:op.sz9faszgsagvys{at}news.barkto.com...
> >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:54:03 -0500, Gary Britt

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > science posits theories to explain existence without
proof or method
> >> > also.
> >> > That's the real point.
> >> > Gary
> >>
> >> The point --the *whole* point-- is that there *is* a method!  What's it
> >> called?  "The Scientific Method."  As Tony says,
contruct a hypothesis
> >> based on observed facts and test it.  If it passes the test, OK, on to
the
> >> next test.  If it fails, it's out.  They are still testing the theory
of
> >> relativity 100 years after it was first proposed, and that displaced
the
> >> theory of gravity 300 years after *it* was proposed.
> >>
> >> A scientific hypothesis must be able to predict the results of a test.
> >> What does ID say?  "It was designed/created that
way."  May as well say
it
> >> was touched by His Noodly Appendage.  No test can possibly fail under
> >> those circumstances.  If ID made predictions that could be tested, then
> >> they would be, and ID could stand or fall on its merits just as
evolution
> >> does.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Steve 
> >> http://www.qmss.com/~sewing
> >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5