There are Geocentrist FReepers who are also creationists.
There are Creationist Freepers who speculate on how many dinosaurs Noah could fit on the Ark. As well as Kent Hovind the famous creationist known as “Dr. Dino”. And the Creationist Coloring Book that has Jesus on a dinosaur.
THere are Creationist FReepers who rejects HIV as the cause of AIDS. Check GGG’s home page.
There are Creationist FReepers who deny that Muslim fanatics were responsible for 9-11 and say that they are actually materialist “temple of Darwin fanatics”.
By whose definition?
So what do you call people who believe that God created everything but not with to the arbitrary conditions that you added?
By portraying *creationists* as people who invariably believe all manner of nonsense like you claim, you do nothing to support conservatism. It's lies like those that drive people away from it (as evos claim) and they are spread by evolutionists and liberals.
You may describe as “shorthand” your “special” definition of Creationist, but I call it a sawed-off shotgun. Who gave you permission to hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of a term? That’s the tactic of those who look to smear a whole class of people by demeaning their identity. There are any number of subclasses of Creationist. I’ve not bothered to run a count. Maybe you have. Whether or no, surely you must at least be as aware of the various subclasses as I. So, why do you use the generic term to describe this particular subclass? To do so seems to me to be a departure from the usual practice, requiring an explanation.
We’ve had prior conversations which indicate to me that you’re not one of those leftwing moonbats we see littering the landscape. So, I must ask, why are you using one of their devices? Unless, of course, previously you had just been stringing me along.
Let me see if I understand how this works:
Creationists are “almost invariably” (nearly always) Geocentrist FReepers.
Creationists “almost invariably” (nearly always) think Christ rode a dinosaur (or have a number in their head representing the number of dinosaurs Noah crammed into the Ark).
Creationists “almost invariably” (nearly always) reject HIV as the cause of AIDS. Departing for a moment here, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand the above is the contrarian view of some scientists, fully credentialed, peer reviewed on a number of subjects including this issue, and holding positions of academic responsibility. That being the case, then why are you attacking ‘Creationists’ who cite these academics as authority for their positions? Why are you not attacking the academics who are at fault for the misinformation (if, indeed, it is misinformation)? It seems to me that your bloodlust is getting the better of your common sense.
And finally, Creationists “almost invariably” (nearly always) think ”Darwinian fanatics” are responsible for 9/11 (really?! who knew?).
And that’s how you clear the room with a single blast.