[celmak]

When you get back, we’ll see if you’re willing to apply those same arguments to the Gregor Mendel and the field of genetics.

Avoiding the question? You also forget the whole premise of this thread; that Creationist are so called “liars.”

And as for Mendel, I seriously doubt that Mendel would agree with Darwin. in fact, all evidence points to him being a Creationist. So are you agreeing in calling Mendel a liar? And are you going to answer the first question; do you think Darwin was qualified to found the theory of Evolution, a man who was not a scientist but a major on theology?

Please don’t use the usual Evo tactic of avoiding the questions, I have replied to your comments in a straight forward manner.

[tacticalogic]

Avoiding the question? You also forget the whole premise of this thread; that Creationist are so called “liars.”

I'm simply examining your premise (that Darwin should not be considered a scientist because he studied theology, and did not have degree in a biology). Before I adopt that criteria as being a valid test of whether someone should be considered a scientist or not, I want to examine it on it's merits and see if it holds true. If it does not, then I have to ask why you've chosen to adopt it, and why you think I should.