Yes, of course, piling on the insults while you know I am not around to respond. Pretty filthy mode of arguing I would call it. Your reply is in post# 3698 and no, Darwin was not a scientist. To be a scientist you have to be honest and Darwin as I show was completely impervious to contrary evidence.
Further, let's look at this 'scientist's' tools:
His three foot rule was old and battered, the common property of the household; the seven-foot deal rod used in measuring plants had been roughly calibrated by the village carpenter; while for millimeter measurements he used paper rules. His weighing scales were faulty, and is chemical balance dated from his childhood experiments with his brother in the garden shed. For liquid-capacity measurements he used an apothecary's measuring glass, roughly and unevenly graduated. He had two micrometers which gave differing results, and took his equivalence of inches and millimeters from an old book where as one of his children later discovered, it was incorrectly given."
From: Gertrude Himmelfarb, "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution", Elephant Paperbacks, 1996, pp 144-145.
No, he was not a scientist.
Dry your eyes, little girl. I included you in the to: line for that message, and I have no idea of your schedule.