The entire field of biology? That sounds pretty sweeping to me.
You are twisting and distorting again. That statement has no direct connection to the first statement - it happens nine paragraphs after the first statement. NOTE: I am in no way trying to support the statement "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory"
When I asked what evidence the author of the article presented in support of this statement, you replied that he provided a quote from a well-known evolutionist. Is this not the quote to which you were referring? If it has no connection, how is it to be taken as evidence?
I have done no such thing - you do know if you present a claim with zero supporting evidence, it is considered an empty accusation?
You seem to take issue with my questioning the basis upon which this statement was made. I took this to mean that you agreed with it. Is that not the case? If not why the argument over it?
True, but I never mentioned anything about "first and foremost" - what are you talking about?
This is from the article, which is supposedly the topic of discussion.
So let me get this straight - whenever somebody references the field of Biology - you think it is a sweeping gross generalization? You do understand that quote is from a hard-core Darwinist?
When I asked what evidence the author of the article presented in support of this statement, you replied that he provided a quote from a well-known evolutionist.
Yes, a quote from a Darwinist is considered evidence. I made no qualitative judgment.
You seem to take issue with my questioning the basis upon which this statement was made.
What "statement" are you talking about? One I neither made not support?
This is from the article, which is supposedly the topic of discussion.
Yes but you implied I said or defended this statement - which I do not - you are wrong.
Why not present quotes (supporting evidence) with your accusations?