Yes, specifies without saying. That's what "imply" means: "to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated...to involve as a necessary circumstance." The point is, if someone claims to be an adherent of one of the Biblical religions, it can be assumed that they mean they believe in a God responsible in some way for creation. You don't need another term to specify that belief.
don’t pretend you aren’t destroying the norms and conventions of meaning for the purpose of calumny and malicious aspersions.
I've shown with several sources that "the norms and conventions of meaning" for the word "creationist" are as I've said. You haven't given any contemporary examples of the word being used in a more general sense. Can you find a popular use of the term to mean, say, someone who believes God created a universe 13 billion years ago that through the inexorable operation of physical laws led to the evolution of human beings? If not, I don't think you have much support for your claim that there is such a generic use; the fact that the term is sometimes modified with adjectives does not prove there is such a use.
Besides, as has been pointed out several times, CREATIONISTS CALL THEMSELVES THAT!
You wish to stigmatize all Creationists in the public mind by attempting to associate them with undesirable traits (‘Kook’, ‘fanatic’ and the like).
Now it's my turn to invite you to look at my posting history. I think you'll have a hard time finding a place where I called creationists kooks or fanatics. I have called some of their ideas wacky, but I try to avoid characterizing the person.
That being the case, I guess you should have also pinged her to #214
Yeah, maybe. I wasn't sure what the etiquette called for, since I didn't actually mention her name. You pinged her to your post, and I'll ping her to this, and I hope the bases are covered.
”In the beginning” is pretty dadgumed specific. But I guess you have to parse things to maintain your Boyarin reputation.
”I've shown with several sources . . .”
Yeah, and I’ve responded with several sources that show a generic use and a more specialized use. You don’t have a leg up on anything except a quantity of brass that permits you to breezily dismiss anything that runs counter to what you want.
”CREATIONISTS CALL THEMSELVES THAT!”
I’ll take that as emphasis and not an instance of yelling. Yeah, Creationists call themselves that. What do you expect them to call themselves? Creotards?
”Now it's my turn to invite you to look at my posting history.”
Now its’ my turn to take your word for it. Of course, you don’t have to lower yourself to calling people kooks or fanatics if you can gain a general acceptance that ‘Creationist’ means the same thing. Which has the added advantage of plausible deniability.