OK, it is rather nutty for you to insist that we use a definition that is particular to yourself for “creationist” instead of using the definition for what over 99.9% of people MEAN when they say “creationist”; including those who call themselves “creationist”.
It is rather nutty for you to provide definitions for creationist that you then take objection to us using; such as Websters that pointed out that creationism usually means opposition to the theory of evolution.
The Pope would not call himself a creationist any more than I would, yet he would, as I do, insist that all things in this universe are created by God.
Evolution, Pope Benedict XVI said is a “truth which enriches our understanding of life and being and such.”
Myself I would say that it is a “theory which enriches our understanding of life and being and such, which explains and predicts observations.”
That might avoid any traumatic feelings of being sneered at for you.
You mean other than DC?
You got sources to back up that statement to demonstrate that when 99.9% of the people outside DC use the term *creationist* that they specifically mean the term as allmendream defines it?
OK. So I made a mistake in letting you out unsupervised.
You still aren’t doing very well holding up your end of the conversation. Your declarations have a whole lot of consequences. You’ve made it obvious that you’re unwilling to deal with any of them. Man up or end this discussion.