You allege that Creationism “as defined” is useless. “As defined” by whom? Your allegation “as defined” is an abject confession that you can only proceed if you are allowed to dictate terms and meanings, and your incessant crying and moaning is an abject confession that you are aware that you are not being allowed to advance your propaganda unopposed. And in front of the entire Forum assembly too! How shameful and embarrassing for you!
Now, you allege that my use of definitions is “non standard.” Which definitions?
the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003?
the Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937?
the The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary?
the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 11th Edition – which shows no change since 1880?
the Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. 2005?
the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.?
the Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition?
or, perhaps the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA?
How are they “non standard”? Do you rate yourself superior to all the authorities represented by the above publications? By whose authority are they deemed “non standard”? Explain in detail how this is so, or stand exposed as a fraud.
You are quite correct in saying that Christianity and Creationism are not synonymous. Of course not. Creationism is a tenet of Christianity; the most important tenet; That the Judeo-Christian God is the Creator of the Universe, and of Mankind. What is your point in asserting something not in dispute? Do you think it somehow salvages your soiled reputation?
Your sad pitiful song and dance was tiresome four years ago. Go cry somewhere else. Your pitiful special creationism is as useless as your same song and dance.
[[You are quite correct in saying that Christianity and Creationism are not synonymous. Of course not. Creationism is a tenet of Christianity; the most important tenet; That the Judeo-Christian God is the Creator of the Universe, and of Mankind. What is your point in asserting something not in dispute? Do you think it somehow salvages your soiled reputation?]]
Those who insert their own words into the bible are infact attemptign to make God’s word Fallible, and their word infallible- They insist they beleive God’s word, and they insist they are ‘Christians’ however, they reject them ost important tenents, because to accept God at His word is to admit evolution can not, and did not happen- so they MUST cause God’s word to becoem fallible, and cause their words to becoem infallible- they are Feabily attempting to make themselves out to be more trustworthy than even God is- These folks, who were NOT there ‘in the beginning’ act as though they were infact there, and desperatetly try to convince everyoen that their word is more true than The One who WAS there i nthe beginning, and who gave His account about what took place. God’s word tells us VERY CLEARLY thgat there was NO sin and death and destruction BEFORE the fall of man- and Yet evolutionists (who falsely claim they are ‘Christians’) INSIST that God ‘got the ball rolling by initiating evolution’ which means that there would HAVE TO BE death, destruction, corruption BEFORE the fall of man, in order for the evolutionary process to somehow manage to overcome biological, physical, mathematical impossibilities trillions of times ‘over billions of years’- which is blatantly contrary to God’s word
Evolution and Christianity are NOT compatible- Either God’s word is infallible3, or man’s is- I’m putting my money on God- Christianity and science are completely compatible, but the hypopthesis of evolution as seen through the highly imaginative glasses of secularism are not compatible- The FACTS are the same for both camps- but the evos go way beyond the facts, and insist that nature was capable of supernatural events- and that nature must have violated it’s own ‘laws’- and that nature was somehow capable of irreducible complexity and of creatign information out of static materials-