The result of your same repetitive ad nauseum I have heard it a hundred times before little dance over definition is not to facilitate communication - as those that inhabit “Crevo” threads know exactly what is meant by “Creationist” and that I am not one by that commonly accepted and well understood meaning of that easily communicated word.
Supposing that physical means cause physical phenomena leads to further discovery and useful innovation because such means are understandable predictable and replicable.
Supposing that supernatural means cause physical phenomena leads to no further discovery and to zero useful innovation because such means are not understandable predictable or replicable.
That is why Science is of use, while Creationism is useless.
With the complicating little factor that when it comes to defining scientific terms, evos claim the *right* to to that because the terms define them and they are the scientists and therefore have the right to do so.
By that reasoning, then evos can make no claim on defining *creationist* as that would them be the responsibility of the creationists to define the term and set the parameters for its use in discussion, just as evos/*scientists* do with *scientific terms*
It is the height of hypocrisy to demand the right to define terms for your self and deny the right of others to define the terms that describe themselves.
Therefore, evos have NO right to try to define the term *creationist*, any more than they let creationists define the terms *scientist*.
All it has come down to is that evos have demanded the right to control the vocabulary and insist on everyone playing by their rules. It is intellectually dishonest to hold people to two sets of standards, forcing them into a heads I win, tails you lose situation.
The argument is over your misanthropic abuse of the term “Creationist.”
“those that inhabit “Crevo” threads know exactly what is meant by “Creationist”
Those who inhabit these threads certainly know what you mean by Creationism. It’s up to them (you know, the free will thing) if they are willing to accept your scandal mongering calumnies as definitive, but I do not. You apparently care only for how you can transmogrify a definition into a slanderous idiom to fit your purposes, and care not a whit if, in the process, you destroy the norms and conventions of definition and communication. Then you pitch a snit when challenged on your transgressions, and you duck, you evade, when pressed for specifics. That’s not a defensible attitude for neither a Christian or a Materialist.
When prodded sufficiently, you’ve provided, finally, a rather routine definition of Creationism:
“Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b”
but you’ve proven unwilling, or unable, to answer the questions: “philosophically, what’s wrong with this definition? Scientifically, what’s wrong with this definition?” Rather fundamental stuff here. What’s the matter? Can’t deal with it?
“Supposing that supernatural means cause physical phenomena leads to no further discovery and to zero useful innovation because such means are not understandable predictable or replicable.
The essence of Materialist apologetics. “useful innovations” Do you propose all knowledge proceeds from a science test book? from a field study report? from a lab experiment?
What of “all men are created equal”? Is that a “useful innovation”? From what experiment, or field study, or science text book did that come? What Materialist doctrine impelled the revolutionary generation to take up arms against a tyrant and assert their freedom?
What of Liberty? From what science test book did that concept spring? Similarly, what of the freedom of conscience? What of the freedom of inquiry? Without Judeo-Christian Creationism, the concept that has unfettered Science would not even exist.
“Science is of use, while Creationism is useless”
Really? Science knows how to abort an unborn child. It takes Creationism (at least as practiced by the Judeo-Christian tradition . . . I don’t know about the Moslem tradition) to teach us that killing unborn children is generally, if not categorically, wrong.