Webster's is useless when one is using terms of art. Webster's documents the normal, non-technical meanings of words. In ontology, "to create" and "to procreate" are quite distinct concepts. No knowledgeable person pulls out the Webster's in a philosophical discussion, or a discussion of a legal term, etc. ---chuckles---
And here I thought I knew something.
Funny, how a source so discredited by you as meaningless would agree with you, yet
Hint: humility is appealing.
Of course Webster's definition in part is the same as the use of the term in philosophy. But Webster's doesn't specify the distinction between creation in the loose sense and creation ex nihilo.
Why be humble? This is the internet.