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.
For all the derision against creationists for not using *legitimate* sources (aka *real scientists*) I fail to understand why the double standard on this one.
An explanation would be nice....
This quibble over the definition of “creationist” is silly. Look up “creationism”:
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis. [Dictionary.com Unabridged]
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]
Words in use take on meanings beyond their literal, most restricted definitions. That’s why in politics “liberal” doesn’t mean generous. Everyone knows what “creationist” means in these discussions.
I also think it’s amusing that people who toss around terms like “evo-atheist” are suddenly so concerned with the accuracy of labels.