Originally posted by Palynka
Your only form of argument is saying I didn't address your questions when that's all what I've been doing.
I maintain that there is no evidence for a Creator, you maintain that there is. Calling yourself agnostic and saying that there is evidence for the existence of a creator is a logical contradiction, by your own definition of agnosticism. If you think ...[text shortened]... o see you admit using derogatory comments as a tool in your arguments. At last, some honesty.
Boy, you really need to go back to 1st Grade and brush up on reading comprehension.
There is NO CONTRADICTION between saying there is SOME evidence for a Creator (which there clearly is) but that the amount of that evidence is insufficient to make one a theist. You clearly don't understand what an agnostic is; please have someone explain my first few posts in this thread to you as you clearly don't understand them.
I cannot see any point where science will solve whether the universe had a Creator. I cannot imagine what scientific proof there would be. The question of how life formed on Earth is obviously different in degree and type than the question whether something Created this universe. That seems self-evident to me.
Your last sentence is a non sequitur. I use derogatory comments when people deserve them. Such derogatory comments ARE NOT a "tool in my arguments". They are a separate free good that fools like you get.
To Telerion: Generally, I would state the premises as this:
Idiots/Morons make very stupid arguments
A has just made a very stupid argument,
Therefore, A is an idiot/moron
This is the format of my derogatory comments.
A makes an argument
I think A is an idiot/moron or his argument is similiar to B's argument which is invalid
Therefore, I claim that the argument is invalid
That is an ad hominem fallacy.
In the first case, one addresses the actual argument, destroys it and concludes anyone making such an argument must be an idiot/moron. This is a logically valid way to argue albeit some sensitive souls might not like it.
In the second case, one ignores the substance of the argument and addresses some character trait of the one making it or claims it is similiar to Hitler's (for example) arguments. This is a logical fallacy.