[Matchett-PI]

#5 reply wrote: "It seem that Darwin had 'issues' that went beyond a mere concern for the promotion of science."

I responded (excerpt): "Darwin was a failed Divinity student. ...."

You responded: "When logical arguments against another's point fail, always go ad hominem."

I was replying to #5. Please explain what you perceive as the "logical arguments" that were in #5's conjecture above.

What wasn't "logical" about offering a possible explanation for the "issues" that #5 thought Darwin might have had?

[Quila]

What wasn't "logical" about offering a possible explanation for the "issues" that #5 thought Darwin might have had?

You are attacking the man, not the theory. ad hominem