[allmendream]

That is based upon the accepted definition of creationism as supplied by Websters, rather than the self serving definition that FR creationists have attempted.

As I pointed out, your term is practically meaningless as according to it; I would be a creationist.

Is “Nature's God” as seen by Franklin and Jefferson the same as the God of the Bible in your mind? If so, then why did Jefferson rewrite the Bible, and why did both deny the divinity of Christ?

[shibumi]

".....according to it; I would be a creationist."

Prayerfully consider the possibility.

[betty boop]

...rather than the self serving definition that FR creationists have attempted

Oh. And who would those people be? Hmmmm?

As to why Franklin and Jefferson allegedly denied the divinity of Christ, perhaps they — as highly educated and cultivated men — had read Newton, who also denied the divinity of Christ. Since we can't interview these people to find out, we can only speculate about such matters.

What we don't have to speculate about is what Jefferson (with a background assist from Franklin) actually wrote in the DoI, in plain language with clear meanings.

[metmom]

That is based upon the accepted definition of creationism as supplied by Websters, rather than the self serving definition that FR creationists have attempted.

As opposed to the self-serving definitions of *creationist* that evos have attempted.

The evo definition is only used to mock, disparage, discredit, and demean those who take God at his word and don't believe that scientists and evos are the Final Word on truth or origins.

You can't get much more self-serving than that.

How hypocritical.