An ad hominem attack isn't just an insult, you are correct. However, it is an ad hominem to attack an opponent personally rather than attacking the argument, which you have done (both in the original thread and here).
I also didn't use a strawman; perhaps it is you who needs the definition, not I. My assertion was a hypothetical, not an argument, nor was it an attack of a position you do not hold. I merely stated that given your current meanderings about the meaning of certain words and their use in science, I wouldn't be surprised to find you asserting the same kinds of things when they do eventually create life "from scratch".
Again, you use ad hominems by attempting to belittle my character again and again in your response. Ad hominem can be used through implication, I hope you realise. The given examples on Wikipedia aren't the definitive examples of how every ad hominem should be. If you attack the character of a person, and by doing so make an implication on their arguments (as you did by referring to 'philosophy and debate' and saying you had 'better post a definition'), you are making an ad hominem.
I also didn't use a strawman; perhaps it is you who needs the definition, not I. My assertion was a hypothetical, not an argument, nor was it an attack of a position you do not hold. I merely stated that given your current meanderings about the meaning of certain words and their use in science, I wouldn't be surprised to find you asserting the same kinds of things when they do eventually create life "from scratch".
Again, you use ad hominems by attempting to belittle my character again and again in your response. Ad hominem can be used through implication, I hope you realise. The given examples on Wikipedia aren't the definitive examples of how every ad hominem should be. If you attack the character of a person, and by doing so make an implication on their arguments (as you did by referring to 'philosophy and debate' and saying you had 'better post a definition'), you are making an ad hominem.
