However, we can directly observe the effects of gravity under controlled conditions. We can apply the scientific method to gravity to discover its principles and behavior.
But you said...'Many things that are very forcefully put forth by science as existing have never been observed. They are simply and very stubbornly insisted upon because they are necessary to uphold the materialist view of origins.' I pointed out no one has ever observed gravity, just as an example. There are many, many others. You apparently agree that gravity has not been observed but exists. So you admit it is possible for things that have never been observed that are forcefully put forth by science as existing to exist. You've lost your credibility.
Thanks, but my credibility is intact.
You should consider the conversation that you are breaking into and read the context before you jump in and embarrass yourself. I was not stating that things that could not be observed are not subject to scientific validation. The person I was responding to was saying that the inability to see something invalidated the analogy I was making. I was simply pointing out that the inability to observe something does not stop science from considering something. Some of those things are not valid, in my opinion. Like macro-evolution. Others, like gravitation, are completely verifiable. (Please note the fact that it is a mischaracterization to infer from the statement that you quoted that I was saying that all things that cannot be observed are put forth by science as existing and forcefully put forth because they are necessary to uphold the materialist view of origins. Perhaps my wording could have been more rigorous, but I honestly did not consider that someone was obtuse enough to assume that I meant that everything that was invisible was not verifiable. If you honestly thought that, then I stand corrected. That's patently ridiculous.)