Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream

I had a discussion several months ago with someone else who was trying to claim that “creationist” just meant anyone who believed in a creator God. I offered cites from encyclopedias of philosophy, from religious sources, and from self-described creationists, all of which used the term as you have defined it. I challenged the person I was talking to to find any example of the term used in common speech to mean anything other than someone who rejects evolution in favor of Genesis-style creation. They never did.

Nevertheless, some people apparently still insist that other, more expansive definition is out there, somewhere. If so, the obvious corollary is that someone can be both an evo and a creationist. So I’ll turn the question back around: what, then, shall we call a non-evo creationist?


328 posted on 03/25/2010 10:55:40 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies ]


To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I remember well that discussion.

Similarly, and without any apparent sense of irony, you were also accused of meaning the word as an epithet and making up your own definition for it - despite using the most commonly accepted definition, one that is unabashedly used among its adherents, and one that should cause absolutely no misunderstanding to any who is conversant with commonly used and understood words in English.

330 posted on 03/25/2010 11:27:53 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson