Now let me get this straight. You accuse me of selective, out of context quoting. Then, you quote two unsourced sentence fragments (not even full sentences, mind you) as a refutation. Do you not see the flaw here?
Apart from that, RAZD pretty much covered it. If you call someone a creationist, you're saying something pretty damn specific. To call Einstein or Hawking a creationist is flat-out misleading. To try and move the goalposts by equating creationist and deist when you're caught out is just being weasely. And no one likes weasels. They smell bad, and they're always up to something shifty and unpleasant.
Now, you're new here, so maybe I should cut you some slack. But I'm a jerk, so I won't. What I will do is tell you that shady half-truths (if even that) don't have a huge shelf-life around here. They're quickly pretty pounced on, and thrashed apart. Getting an attitude about a refuted point, rather than simply arguing back, is treated in pretty much the same manner. But if you manage to play it straight with us, you'll find we'll do the same.
"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly
™ Version 4.2