> But for reasons of practicality we have to start from the basis that what our senses
> are telling us is generally what is real.
>>Senses are primarily receivers of information/data and are not necessarily equal in all >>beings even within the same race...Like, for example, some people are color blind, >>etc...
Precisely.
> After this, we can base arguments on what can be seen, smelt, felt, heard, and if what
> is observed is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, then it is a fact.
>>Say what!? Facts need to be demonstratable, re-produceable and verifiable...
This is covered by the phrase "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", just as it is in a court room.
> A scientific theory is a suggested conclusion based on a logical deduction derived from
> observed facts.
>>Indeed, and many theories do use reverse twisted logic, cirluar logic and no reason at >>all (like the assumption of randomness!)...
The mechanism of random changes taking place in DNA is fairly well understood.
> The generally accepted theory at any time is the simplest theory that can explain all
> observed phenomena.
>>I agree with that...
Good.
> This is why Darwin is accepted as the current working theory, and why Creationism
> isn't a scientific theory, let alone a current working hypothesis.
>>This is a boggus argument at best! For example, I don't accept either!!!
You can't just disagree! you have to provide a reason, otherwise accept it.
>>Just because religious creationism isn't a scientific theory and, therefore, could be >>wrong does not mean that Darwinian evolution is automatically right!!!
I agree. I never said that.
>>This is what is wrong with your logic. Essentially, you use reverse twisted logic in >>most of your arguments!!!
"This" is wrong with my logic? What is? Something I never said is wrong with my logic???
Dave L
The Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture JAEA:
[
egyptian-architecture.com]
[
glasgow.academia.edu]
[
egyptology-scotland.squarespace.com]
Dave's Archaeology Homepage:
[
arkysite.wordpress.com]
