[Junior]

You seem to have forgotten you answered it yourself with your own suppositions.

And you did not see the invitation for you to chime in with your own definition? Instead you attempt to draw conclusions not in evidence.

Dear God! Do they not teach thinking any more? Or do your average creationists shun it for some reason?

[MacDorcha]

"And you did not see the invitation for you to chime in with your own definition? "

I was under the impression I was doing the "scientist" thing and starting off with an assumption.

And as for "not in evidence"- I'd rather have Truth than musings of labcoats that can't get laid. (and by "can't get laid," I am implying that they are so out of touch with the real world that they couldn't operate in the natural capacity most of us do.)

[PatrickHenry]

Do they not teach thinking any more? Or do your average creationists shun it for some reason?

I've pointed out before that adult creationists are, by definition, that residue of the population that either cannot -- or will not -- do the required thinking. By limiting this statement to "adult" creationists, I am making appropriate allowance for children and students who have not yet been introduced to the theory -- a theory which is, in its overall concept, very simple to understand.