From: "Gary Britt" 

Bob Comer has pointed out your assumptions or *faith based beliefs* in the
below.  Further, the below is 10,000 times more certain and based upon
10,000 times more clear direct observations than are the theories regarding
the development of life from non-life and the subsequent evolution of that
life to modern man.  Yet even in something 10,000 times more certain, it
still contained assumptions and could still be wrong.

Your system of beliefs on the development of life require *faith* in things
you do not know and can not prove.  You have your kind of *faith*, you just
refuse to recognize it.

Gary

"Steve Ewing"  wrote in message
news:op.sz9frtvjsagvys{at}news.barkto.com...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:36:08 -0500, Gary Britt 
> wrote:
>
> > Then what it suggests is an implication; an assumption of some sort
based
> > upon what can be observed.  To believe that what evolution suggests is
> > correct does take some amount of *belief* or *faith* if you will,
> > because it cannot be directly observed
>
> What it requires is a belief in causation; that time flows in one
> direction, and that from a given reaction, the causing action can be
> inferred.
>
> I see a snowball flying at me.  I see the neighbor's kid, following
> through.  I create a hyposthesis that he threw the snowball at me.  I
> reconstruct the snowball's trajectory backwards and see that it originates
> at the kid.  I then demonstrate how to "lead the runner"
with a snowball
> of my own.
>
> I never saw him throw the snowball, but I can reconstruct the action that
> caused it to hit me based on indirect observation of the results.
>
> --
> Steve 
> http://www.qmss.com/~sewing

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