“I'm just here to ask you a few questions sir.”

During a debate on a religion discussion board (which I was not even participating in!) A Creationist compared me to Lt Columbo...

“JimC loves playing the Columbo! It's all meant to distract, obfuscate, and keep discussions off-balance. He's the master of unintelligibility.”

This is of course a gross misrepresentation of Columbo - but being compared to the great man is a massive compliment - Columbo is one of my favourite fictional characters and always has been. I bought a box set of the Complete Columbo about 6 months ago and watching an episode during a lazy afternoon is a treat I never get tied of. 

Now, it's obvious A Creationist didn't mean it as a compliment but as I've mentioned before, religious apologists are often hoist by their own petard when they use analogies, and this is another example.

Columbo was a genius. His opponents were of course also extremely clever, but delusional, arrogant, living a lie, hiding the truth behind a facade of smugness, confidence, authority and respectability.

“There must be something wrong with me. I seem to bother people, make them nervous”

Especially people with something to hide.

Columbo had an instinct for quickly spotting a charlatan. But he wouldn't rely on his intuition: he'd work diligently and politely to establish the facts, gather the evidence. And he'd get the evidence simply by asking questions, so the liars would expose themselves, their ever more contrived answers and excuses causing their stories to unravel. He would give them the rope with which they would hang themselves.

“I'm just here to ask you a few questions sir.”

On a few occasions, when Columbo's opponents realised they had run out of answers to his questions, when his “just one more thing” was the last straw and they knew the game was up, they would attack him, even try to kill him. But he always anticipated this, and would be prepared and handle the situation calmly.

Columbo was always one step ahead of the frauds and liars he was exposing. And they couldn't see it until it was too late.

“Just one more thing...”

Peter Falk sums it up well in his autobiography...

"I was struck very early on by the dramatic possibilities of playing a man who housed within himself two opposite traits. On the one hand being a regular Joe, the guy next door, nothing special, and at the same time being the most brilliant detective on the globe. A guy with a mind like Einstein who sounded like the box boy at Food Giant".

"Another thing I realised about him – appearing intelligent made him uneasy – it put him at a disadvantage. He was much more comfortable looking a bit slow – it was relaxing for him to give the impression of mediocrity. He knew he had you where he wanted you."

Questions and Answers

It has been suggested that I avoid and/or ignore questions put to me on a religious discussion board, even though I try my best to answer every question. A cynical person might think these accusations are just needling,  but I think the problem is when the discussion board gets very busy, and then it can be difficult to follow threads with multiple branches, so it is easy to miss a response.

I thought it might help to clarify things if I create a numbered list of questions and the answers I gave at the time, to use as a reference, so here it is...

Question 1: Given these two statements…

a) "reason can be - and often is - the greatest enemy that faith has" 

b) "You say reason IS the enemy of faith and I wrote that it CAN BE. Very different." 

Question 1a) Explain exactly what the author meant. What was the thinking behind it. 

Answer
Obviously I can't read minds, so my answer to your question is based on what was said, and an assumption that the author says what he means and means what he says. So it seems to me that this is saying reason can be the greatest enemy that faith has - but is not necessarily the greatest enemy that faith has.

Question 1b: Regarding Statement (b) What was the significance, in the author's eyes' of the caps. What EXACTLY did he have in mind?

Answer
It seems to me that this [the caps] is stressing that reason is not necessarily the enemy of faith. It CAN be.  Emphasis [by the author] on "can" because it's not always the enemy of faith, but it can be the enemy of faith.  A comparison might be if someone says "Alcohol IS the cause of domestic abuse" and someone else points out that "Alcohol CAN BE the cause of domestic abuse." 

Question 2: Be specific. In what way/ways can reason be the enemy of faith?

Answer
Reason has the ability to expose the fallacies and human instincts upon which faith is mainly based. As you yourself said, If faith is true, then "it's the most reasonable thing in the universe." Reason is how we determine what is true and false and hence it can show when faith is not true. 

Question 3: Regarding the Mark Twain Quotation: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Question 3a: Is this a factual statement or just the opinion expressed by a certain individual?     

Answer

I think there are more options than the two you've provided. I would say what we have here is a satirical statement expressed by a certain individual.      

Question 3b Is it a truth claim?  

Answer

The statement itself is not a truth claim, because it is satirical.  But I would say that the satirical statement gives clues regarding the truth claim held by  Mark Twain.

        

Avoiding the Issue

(A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT ALSO KNOWN AS: AVOIDING THE QUESTION [FORM OF], MISSING THE POINT, STRAYING OFF THE SUBJECT, DIGRESSING, DISTRACTION [FORM OF])

From Bo Bennett's excellent website…

Part 1 - Overview

Description: When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument.  Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.

Logical Form:
X is Y.  Did you see that new show on TV last night?

Example #1:

Daryl: Answer honestly, do you think if we were born and raised in Iran, by Iranian parents, we would still be Christian, or would we be Muslim?

Ross: I think those of us raised in a place where Christianity is taught are fortunate.

Daryl:  I agree, but do you think if we were born and raised in Iran, by Iranian parents, we would still be Christian, or would we be Muslim?

Ross: Your faith is weak -- you need to pray to God to make it stronger.

Daryl:  I guess you’re right.  What was I thinking?

Explanation: Some questions are not easy to answer, and some answers are not easy to accept.  While it may seem, at the time, like avoiding the question is the best action, it is actually an abandonment of reason and honest inquiry; therefore, fallacious.

In the above example, Daryl is attempting to demonstrate that religion is a cultural phenomenon and belief is mostly a result of one's culture.  To claim that this would mean that any particular religion does not represent the truth would be fallacious.  All we can know from multiple religions that make conflicting claims is that they all cannot be right.

Example #2

Barney:  God is quoted as saying "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys"

It seems to me that;

a) God is commanding murder
or
b) Saul is imagining, or pretending, that God gave him the command in order to justify murder
or
c) The event didn't take place at all.

Fred: Irrespective of the fact that your summations and presentations of false alternatives have been disproven to be the only options time and time again, let's examine the current allegations. Here is a response from one Christian perspective regarding the case of the Amelekites: http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

Explanation: Fred avoids the question with a reference to an apologist  web site which uses 20,000 (twenty thousand!) words to discuss the meaning of the word "genocide." 


Example #3

Barney: I don't understand the significance of your reference to "countless believers" coming to faith as adults (as well as conversions). My assumption was that you felt numbers were important. I'm also not sure how you define "truth claim" because it has different meanings. Are you using it in the sense that Christianity is right and other religions are wrong?

Fred: Try harder to read things in context. That will help in you lack of understanding. Your bias probably makes it near impossible for you to read something with a fair mind.

Explanation: Fred avoids the question by means of a character assassination.  Regardless of Barney's alleged character flaws, the questions have been avoided by means of ad hominem and any further attempt at clarification is not being encouraged (to put it mildly!) 


Exception: At times, a digression is a good way to take the pressure off of a highly emotional argument.  A funny story, a joke,  or anything used as a “break” could be a very good thing at times.  As long as the issue is dealt with again.

Tip: Don’t avoid questions where you are afraid you won’t like the answers.  Face them head on, and deal with the truth.

Variation: Distraction can be a form of avoiding the issue, but does not have to be just verbal.  For example, being asked a question you can’t answer and pretending your phone rings, saying you need to use the restroom, faking a heart attack, etc.


Part 2 - A Case Study in Avoiding the Issue

Click here

Christian Apologists Avoiding the Issue - a case study

An extraordinary case study of how difficult it can be to reason with Religious Apologists. This discussion went on for nearly 2 months on and off!   

At the heart of the debate is a Christian Apologist's certainly that the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "Creationism" is "obsolete".  Bizarrely he uses a Wikipedia article on Old Earth Creationism to make his point!

It transpires eventually (on line 179 ) that the Apologist has assumed the OED definition is specific to Young Earth Creationism. Perhaps it's my fault for not spotting that earlier.

Anyway, lots of fallacies here: avoiding the issue; logic failures; ad hominem; straw man; memory failures (or possibly trolling - hard to tell); plus using terms like tautology and deconstruction because they sound impressive but getting them wrong!

It's a pity because the discussion was quite interesting when A Creationist was engaged. But then A Christian Apologist intervenes and it falls apart...  

	What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 2 May 2014 at 2:58AM	Commentary
1	"Like evolution, creationism can have more than one meaning. At its most basic, creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity of some sort - but after that, there is quite a lot of variety among creationists as to just what they believe and why. Some believe that a god simply started the universe off and then left it alone; others believe in a deity that has been actively involved in the universe since creation. People may lump all creationists together in one group, but it is important to understand where they differ and why."	A Creationist fails to give the source for this extract. It comes from here It's worth reading the entire article, especially this paragraph... Creationist arguments against evolution depend heavily on falsehoods, distortions, and fundamental misunderstandings of science. Creationists have to do this because their position doesn't stand a chance against evolution from a rational, scientific perspective. A reasoned, fact-based debate isn't possible for creationism, so creationists inevitably have to resort to half-truths, misrepresentations, and even outright lies. This is in itself a revelation about what creationism really is because if creationism was a sound system, it would be able to rely entirely on the truth.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 2 May 2014 at 3:00AM
2	“Creationism noun (Concise Encyclopedia) The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of the universe and all living things is literally correct. Scientific creationists believe that a creator made all that exists, though they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation. Creationism became the object of renewed interest among conservative religious groups following the wide dissemination of the theory of biological evolution, first systematically propounded by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species (1859). In the early 20th century some U.S. states banned the teaching of evolution, leading to the Scopes Trial. In the late 20th century many creationists advocated a view known as intelligent design, which was essentially a scientifically modern version of the argument from design for the existence of God as set forth in the late 18th century by the Anglican clergyman William Paley."	And now a definition which is again uncredited – it's from Merriam Webster's Dictionary - which includes an extract from their Concise Encyclopedia. Here is the source Again, A Creationist has been selective this time ignoring the dictionary definitions on the page and skipping to the encyclopedia entry at the bottom of the page.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Pantheist  on 2 May 2014 at 7:42AM
3	that's that explanation, are their any names for the different types of creationists, other than just old/young earth?
4	As you say it is a very broad spectrum and a few narrower bands would help.
5	Some believe that a god simply started the universe off and then left it alone;
6	this seems quite an important difference from other creationists, so is there another classification for this belief?
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 2 May 2014 at 7:50AM
7	Some thoughts and definitions…
8	What is a Creationist
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 2 May 2014 at 2:52PM
9	I don't think there are different names for all the variations in views. I used to think it was either old earth or young earth creationists and that pretty much covered it. My overall views are unknown here since I have not detailed them. So it's not accurate to simply refer to me as a creationist. One has to assume a lot of details. It's not wise to fill in the blanks for someone else. I actually don't know where my overall views fall with respect to a particular category name.	He says his overall views are unknown, but in fact A Creationist has made his views very clear on this discussion board over the years, expecially his views on evolution, intelligent design, Michael Behe and the Discovery Institutute.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 4 May 2014 at 7:59PM
10	It does seem as if attempting to apply the word "creationist" to a specific definition is an attempt to straitjacket varying beliefs on the matter in a way that doesn't really "fit." I think A Creationist did a good job of giving an overview of current perspectives. To go further than that would be to invite caricature in use of the term, and we all know where that leads:	This intervention makes no sense. Words are not applied to definitions – definitions are applied to words. Baffling. In any case, this entire issue seems to have started because I referred to A Creationist as a creationist because he referred to himself as a creationist!
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 8:43PM
11	A Creationist described himself as a creationist. Your criticism baffles me.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 4 May 2014 at 9:03PM
12	You say that I described myself as a creationist.	Yes you did.
13	Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not according to the definition you gave. I was making a distinction between old earth and young. As a Christian who sees the universe as billions of years old, and yet still believes that and Intelligent Agency (whom I call God) created it all, I recognize that there are many more differences between me and those that hold to a young earth - literal 6 days interpretation of Genesis. What I fully believe cannot be described simply by calling me a creationist. And after reading your blog, it's easy to see that you mean it in a pejorative sense. As it is, Jim deliberately misleads his readers starting with the blog heading and it goes downhill from there. It's evident from Jim's posts here (not all of them but generally it's true) and his blog that Jim must resort to caricatures to score points with his readers (all three of them).	Hang on – I only gave a definition because I was asked to do so! When I refer to A Creationist as a Creationist I'm using whatever meaning A Creationist gives the word! There's no evidence that I have used the word in a perjorative sense. All I've done is use it as a label, but only after A Creationist used it as a label. Why would anyone think I was trying to decribe what A Creationist “fully believes”? The rest of this is just tu quoque
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 9:14PM
14	These are your exact words from 3rd March 2013…
15	"I'm a creationist that believes in the big bang. I used to believe in a young earth but no longer am convinced of that position. However I am open to being proven wrong by young earth creationists."
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 4 May 2014 at 9:23PM
16	Thanks for proving my point. Apart from that small amount, you have no idea as to my view.	Yes I do.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 9:29PM
17	I thought you were objecting to me to referring to you as a creationist. It seemed logical to me, seeing as you referred to yourself as a creationist.
18	As for your view on creation, I think you've explained it very clearly in various conversations here.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 4 May 2014 at 9:32PM
19	Very well then. Please articulate for us my views and add your understanding of my views on Genesis 1 and 2
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 9:45PM
20	With regard to your current Creationist views, and if I had to categorise the specific label of Creationist you gave yourself, I'd say you were an intelligent design creationist. You generally accept common descent but you believe there are aspects of life that evolutionary theory will never explain. From a Genesis context, you assume that God created some form of life de novo from which all life is descended, and a template, hence Adam and Eve are allegorical not literal. Was I close?	Also known is that A Creationist used to be a young earth creationist, but became an old earth creationist. Most of his friends are young earth creationists, including the attendees at his Bible Study group. A Creationist's views on Intelligent Design have also been discussed in great detail previously. I wonder if he's forgotten those conversations?
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 4 May 2014 at 9:52PM
21	Only close in parts. So how are your readers of your blog supposed to see those specifics based on your choice of a single word? Using the word creationist does not clarify someone's views. It's unnecessary to use a word that has a wide variety of views. It seems dishonest. If we were talking about our views on free will would you then blog about the "creationist's" views on free will? I know atheists whose views on free will are close to mine.	Come on – that was very close! If it was really just in parts – which parts? Again avoids the point I've made which is that I'm not using the lable to clarify anyone's views. It's a label to differentiate who said what. It's what people say and do that clarifies their views. Not the label. Continues to avoid the point that using the word Creationist does not describe his views – but he used the word to describe himself!!!
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 4 May 2014 at 9:56PM
22	Jim is quite adept at "paraphrasing" our views--although accuracy seems to be a casualty of such.	Ad hominem – adding no value to the debate.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 4 May 2014 at 10:01PM
23	Yes, somewhere the accuracy is lost in translation.	Ditto!
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 9:57PM
24	I use the term "creationist" in my blog as a label to differentiate you from other people. It's a label you've used. Your words describe your views, not your label.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 4 May 2014 at 10:00PM
25	I don't believe a word you are saying about this. I believe the reason you use dishonesty in your arguments is because without dishonesty, your arguments are weakened. So you create caricatures and then you argue from there. Your excuses for using a word that doesn't add to the point of your posts demonstrates this fact.	More ad hominem – basically calling me a liar but with no evidence. And again a reference to “caricatures” but no explanation of what this caricature is.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 10:07PM
26	You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure what facts you're providing.
27	As I said, I'm using the word "Creationist" as a label on the blog, because you used it to label yourself. Where is the caricature that you refer to?
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 4 May 2014 at 10:10PM
28	and you're entitled to your opinion. Please name a Christian who is NOT also a creationist.	Good question and interesting change of topic - although a related topic. I'm sure A Creationist is familiar with Kenneth Miller from the reference to the Scopes Trial he provided on line 2 and also from material about Miller I provided a few months previously regarding irreducible complexity.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 10:14PM
29	Well I have friends who are Christian but not creationist, but I'm guessing you mean someone in the public eye.
30	How about Kenneth Miller?
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 4 May 2014 at 10:19PM
31	So Kenneth Miller doesn't believe that God created the universe? That God had nothing to do with it?	Hmm.. is it possible he doesn't know who Kenneth Miller is? Also hints at a definition of creationism which ignores a specific reference to the origin of life and evolution.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 10:23PM
32	He doesn't believe God created life. He is an evolutionary biologist.
33	Which definition of Creationist are you using?
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 4 May 2014 at 10:32PM
34	Rather, what definition of "creationist" are YOU using?	Another pointless intervention from A Christian Apologist This intervention subsequently derails the entire debate. It's a classic example of avoidance used by politicians – rather than answer a question, throw a different question back.  "Why should people vote for you? What's your policy to reduce unemployment?"  "Rather - what's YOUR policy?"
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 10:33PM
35	The dictionary definition. Which one are you using?
	Re: What is a creationistPosted by A Christian Apologist  on 4 May 2014 at 10:39PM
36	The definition that transcends such, as offered by A Creationist. Again: caution to all who would appeal to language definitions in fixed references as if they were cast in stone forever--they are obviously not!	A definition that transcends the dictionary. I wonder if there's a market for transcendent dictionaries? And seemingly missing the point that A Creationiste provided an encyclopedia entry from a dictionary – whilst ignoring the dictionary entry. The argument that language is cast in stone is a straw man, created by the Christian apologist so that he can refute it.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2014 at 10:57PM
37	You're using a definition of a word that transcends the dictionary. Love it.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 5 May 2014 at 2:13AM
38	Of course you do because you appeal to a definition that has already been refuted through reference to a living language! Thanks for your appeal to an ossified reference and your inability/unwillingness to transcend such!	Already refuted? When did that happen?!
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 5 May 2014 at 6:51AM
39	I know you don't seem to like the dictionary definition but it hasn't been "refuted".
40	A dictionary provides the meaning that is in current use, and will also provide obsolete meanings as well if there are any. Most dictionaries, and the OED in particular, are revised every year, precisely because English (like most languages) is a "living language"
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 6 May 2014 at 10:43PM
41	Apparently it has yet to be revised to include a broader understanding of what you refer to as a "creationist." We're trying to provide that greater understanding. Again, referring to a dictionary will always only provide a snapshot of language meanings as they once existed. Sometimes those meanings remain valid and sometimes they do not, depending on the subject.	Dictionaries provide definitions - not "broad understanding."  In fact this whole "broad understanding" argument is redundant, given that I provided a comprehensive explanation of Creationism on line 8. I can only guess that A Christian Apologist intervened in the discussion without actually reading the thread.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 6 May 2014 at 10:59PM
42	The OED (as with any major dictionary) provides current definitions based on how words are currently used, and it also lists obsolete definitions if there are any.
43	But bear in mind that the issue here is not what I refer to as a creationist - it is whatever A Creationist referred to when he described himself as a creationist.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 9 May 2014 at 1:39AM
44	Current and obsolete definitions--again--according to whom? You have completely ignored the fact that all languages are living things, and place your entire faith (yes, faith!) in the editors of the OED to provide up-to-the-minute nuanced understanding of all contemporary applications of the English language!	Up to the minute? Words don't change by the minute! And still no explanation of what is actually wrong with the dictionary definition!
45	You say that the issue is not what you refer to as a creationist but what A Creationist referred to when he described himself as a creationist. So why not discuss that matter in current terms that might lead us all to greater understanding rather than to again appeal to a somewhat ossified source whose definition lends nothing to current discussion here?	The matter has been discussed, and I've provided a wealth of explanations. But the issue now seems to be the dictionary definition. I think I may have been trolled and taken the bait...
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 9 May 2014 at 7:15AM
46	Definitions are current and obsolete according to how words are used. Obviously the OED is not "up to the minute" but words don't change meaning by the minute. One could argue that Wikipedia is "up to the minute". Guess which definition Wikipedia uses in its opening sentence.
47	I discussed the meaning of creationst and the types of creationist in detail several days before your intervention strangled the discussion. Perhaps you missed it - here it is again…
48	What is a Creationist
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 11 May 2014 at 1:04AM
49	Let's take one of your OED example sentences from that reference:
50	"The majority of Americans believe in creationism rather than evolution."	That is indeed one of the example sentences. And here are the others, ignored for some reason... “They spend much time attacking biblical creationism and creationists.” “The original proposal was to stop teaching evolution theory until creationism could be taught alongside.”
51	Let's look at the actual figures:	Yes let's - because the figures contradict the conclusion made by the Apologist!
52	Pew Forum Evolution Survey	(60%) say that “humans and other living things have evolved over time.” Only about half of these (32%) take the view that evolution is “due to natural processes such as natural selection” (33%) reject the idea of evolution. So only 32% of the population take the view that evolution is “due to natural processes such as natural selection.” So 68% of the population believe that evolution is not due to natural processes.   That seems to support the statement that “The majority of Americans believe in creationism rather than evolution." But so what? A Christian Apologist is ignoring the purpose of the example sentences in a dictionary. If he's doing that deliberately then he's trolling so I will assume it's just done in error.
53	As stated, your OED reference source is obsolete.	That was stated. Wrongly stated.
54	You are arguing semantics based on fixed, demonstrably obsolete references, whereas we are trying to explore a more accurate, up-to-date understanding of the term.	Actually I'm not seeing any attempt to produce a more “up to date” understanding – I'm seeing a lot of effort going into saying the dictionary is wrong with no evidence!
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 11 May 2014 at 8:29AM
55	You've misunderstood the purpose of the example sentences. The example sentences show how a word has actually been used in books and publications. It does not endorse the opinion of the person using the words! For example, you will find the sentence "Creationists have pursued more sophisticated marketing and political tools to promote their alternative theory" in the Washington post just a few weeks ago. Does that help us to understand how to use the word Creationist? Yes. Are Creationists really using marketing and political tools? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. Do you see what I mean?
56	Rather than me continuing to explain how to use a dictionary, I think the quickest way to resolve this question is for you to provide your own dictionary definition of Creationism which resolves the issues you perceive in the OED definition. And I promise to send your definition to the OED (and Merriam Webster) for consideration.
	Re: What is a creationistP osted by A Christian Apologist  on 13 May 2014 at 12:58AM
57	There are currently estimated to be over a million words in the English language, and you seem to be asserting that the OED is current on all of their meanings. Even used as an example, you are still appealing to a factually obsolete reference which raises suspicions as to how out of date the actual definition is--see what I mean?	There could be a billion words in the dictionary – but we are only discussing one of them. This is avoiding the issue. And as we've seen, the OED definition is not obsolete.
58	The fact that you fail to recognize how dictionary definitions are not necessarily current regarding a living language makes it difficult for me to explain to you how living languages work. Here's a more current and nuanced understanding of what the term "old earth creationism" might refer to:	Everything from line 34 avoids my question on line 33.
59	Wikipedia Link	Again – more avoidance of the issue. I've already explained Old Earth Creationism on line 8.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 13 May 2014 at 3:20PM
60	I am not referring to a "factually obsolete reference" (whatever that means). The example sentences show how the word is used in published works, it does not judge the opinions of the people using the words.
61	Your reference to an Encyclopaedia does not support your argument regarding dictionaries.	Plus... The Apologist hasn't checked the source that the Wikipedia article cites. More on that later!
62	What would be helpful is for you to provide your own dictionary definition of Creationism which resolves the issues you perceive in the OED definition.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 15 May 2014 at 1:43AM
63	But why would the dictionary use an example sentence to refer to something that is no longer true? That indicates a non-current definition as well.	It didn't. And even if it did, it's an example sentence, used in literature, not invented by the dictionary.
65	Of course my reference to an encyclopedia supports my argument regarding dictionaries - it clarifies the definition at hand in more current terms.	No it doesn't. An encyclopedia is not more current, it's more detailed.
67	You say it would be helpful for me to provide my own dictionary definition of Creationism which resolves the issues I perceive in the OED definition. Let's just start with the Wikipedia one and discuss the matter from there.	Classic avoidance. Once again referring to an encyclopedia (Wikipedia) which anyone can edit, which is not authoritative, and what's more, he's not even referring to the entry for Creationism! I do suspect that A Christian Apologist realises he's lost the argument at this point and is deliberately providing the wrong entry in Wikipedia, having realised that the entry for Creationism in Wikipedia uses the OED definition as its opening sentence.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 15 May 2014 at 7:41PM
68	I've explained how the sample sentences work in the dictionary, but perhaps I haven't explained the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary.
69	An encyclopedia is a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically.
70	Encyclopedia
71	A dictionary is a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.
72	Dictionary
73	The fact that you are unable to provide an improved dictionary definition for Creationism illustrates my point, but if you do want to give it a try, then I suppose you could start with the Wikipedia entry for Creationism as inspriration.
74	Creationism
75	But bear in mind that an encyclopedia (like Wikipedia) and a dictionary are different things, and we are looking for a dictionary definition here.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 17 May 2014 at 12:12AM
76	I love when JimC  is caught flat footed on an indisputable point and still refuses to admit he is wrong.	The most obvious avoidance so far. Completely ignores every point I've just made resorting to Tu Quoque!
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 17 May 2014 at 12:26AM
77	Just like in politics!	OMG - Irony!
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 17 May 2014 at 3:38PM
79	In my experience, there is a very fine line between Apologists and Politicians. In fact there are some classic political/apologist dodges in this thread. Full explanation here… (especially paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2)… here
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 19 May 2014 at 12:50AM
80	You were caught using an outdated definition of a term and a more contemporary understanding of "creationism's" meaning was offered here: Wikipedia	No I wasn't! And again more avoidance by referring to the wrong Wikipedia entry. This must be deliberate – it's happened at least 3 times now...
81	Yet you continue to avoid the point! As stated, you will apparently go to any lengths not to admit when you are in error and to falsely portray the positions of others, and your tautologies prove that!	The point is this: If The Christian Apologist considers the definition of Creationism in the OED is inaccurate, then he could provide an accurate definition.  The Christian Apologist is obviously unable to do so hence the continued avoidance.
82	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 19 May 2014 at 6:20AM
83	You've used the wrong Wikipedia link (for the 3rd time!) and you've confused an encyclopedia with a dictionary (again!) Remember that I was asking you for a dictionary definition of Creationism, not "Old Earth Creationism" which is but one type of Creationism. If you want the Wikipedia entry for Creationism, it's here… Creationism
84	…but remember, your challenge was to provide a dictionary definition of your own. Not an encyclopedia entry.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 19 May 2014 at 6:48AM
85	Anyone who believes an intelligent agency created the universe is a creationist of a sort. There are varying degrees of how the IA accomplished such but unless one believes in an eternal universe or a self generating one ( or some other explanation) and if they believe someone or something created "it" then call them what you like but they are all creationists of some kind. I don't care what label you want to put on them. The bottom line is the mechanism for how the universe began. If other than an IA then your a materialist or naturalist or a whateveristidontgiveacrap! If IA then you are a creationist of some measure so getoveritandshutupalreadycuznoonereallygivesacrap!	AT LAST! That does sound like a dictionary definition. I don't think it's accurate, but at least A Creationist has tried to answer the question. I think what's missing here is any reference to the creation of life, or the design of life.  For example, if I believed an intelligent agency created the universe by accident and had no idea that life would ever appear, am I a creationist?
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 19 May 2014 at 6:56AM
86	The key factor in the word Creationism is one's view on the evolution of life - not just the creation of the universe per se. Hence the major controversies between creationism and evolution over the last 150 years, various campaigns by creationists to have creationism taught alongside evolution in schools, various attempts by the Discovery institute to find organisms that cannot have evolved and must have been created, etc.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 19 May 2014 at 7:18AM
87	Just to be clear - your definition of Creationism is - "The belief that an intelligent agency created the universe."
88	Is that right?
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 19 May 2014 at 3:41PM
89	You never learn. There are two basic belief categories regarding the existence of the universe. An IA created the universe or an IA doesn't exist and there's another explanation. Then within those TWO basic beliefs there are many variations. You can't simply label someone a "creationist" and think that describes the person's belief about the beginning of the universe. The BEST way to clarify what a person ACTUALLY believes is to ask them (instead of assuming). Now THIS is the last post I'll offer on this dead horse thread. So if you have a followup question, save it. If you can contain yourself NOT to have the last word.	Oh dear. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere! There are indeed variations within the definition of Creationism. I've never said that the label of Creationist describes the person's belief about the beginning of the universe.  And I didn't label someone "a creationist" - a Creationist labelled himself a Creationist! A Creationist has created a straw man argument which he then goes on to refute.
90	Terms must always be defined. We don't have the luxury of a face-to-face conversation and so absent are the many other communication devices. Textual communication leaves open MANY misunderstandings and often a person offering an idea or though isn't fully understood.	Good point – we could use a dictionary!
91	I wasn't there. I don't know how God did it (to me the IA is God and the God I believe in is the God of the Bible - others believe in a different God and I get that). I actually don't care how He did it. I'll never fully understand it and any thought I offer on the how is just meaningless speculation anyway. I'm not an expert in the science of it. I'm content to have questions about it. And I'm open to just about ANY possibility that involves an IA creating everything.	Very interesting - but how is this relevant? And how does this relate to A Creationist's previous support for Michael Behe?
92	Listening to the podcast (from the UK) I've learned that the best way we can communicate is to offer our ideas and thoughts, offer rejoinders, and then move on already! You have a sick obsession with being right and endlessly wanting to prove the other wrong and pointing out the many flaws in their arguments. In the meantime, I have NO IDEA what you really think about more important topics.	Good idea! As for this so called obsession – if we read through the thread it isn't me who is constantly trying to prove someone is wrong! And I'm always happy to share what I think – just ask!
93	If you simply desire to endlessly debate trivial points you'll find that I'm a bit hostile to that. It's tiring and offers NOTHING to further understanding between issues.	Let's remind ourselves what my question was (on line 33) and how the debate was derailed into trivia from line 34.
94	I want to know what people believe and why they believe it. These endless back and forth proving-one's-pont over and over and over again is a meaningless way to dialogue. And I'm beginning to get the idea that you simply want material for your blog (that no one but you reads). zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz	Well, there's no shortage of material!
95	Listen to the podcast I offered and pick out several other topic to listen to and you will see "discussions" at their best. I've learned more about the opposing views of others because people are allowed to speak their mind and offer counter arguments all in the spirit of putting out information and arguments for people to consider and weigh. THAT is meaningful dialogue.	Good point. The podcasts are also in plain English. Which helps.
96	Your obsession with the definition of "creationist" just demonstrates you have a serious psychopathology. Take my advice. If you want to make this a board that is meaningful and where people actually feel a desire to participate, then things need to change here. Otherwise it's just a place where roosters strut their stuff. again zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz	Note that it's not my obsession. See line 34.  The whole "definition" argument is ridiculous!
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Creationist on 19 May 2014 at 3:42PM
97	Maybe we need a post limit on a specific topic or a moderator that closes a particular topic when it becomes a dead horse.	That actually enables avoidance. Trolling can continue until the db runs out of space! Rather like Jeremy Paxman trying to get an answer out of Michael Howard.
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by JimC  on 19 May 2014 at 4:25PM
98	All I'm asking for is an updated dictionary definition of "creationism" bearing in mind that I've been told on this db that the current dictionary definition is "obsolete." Given that assertion and given the topic, I thought it reasonable to ask what the dictionary definition should be. And as you say, terms should be defined. Now obviously there are many types of creationism but I don't see why that prevents a definition of the word creationism. There are many types of animal but that doesn't prevent a definition of the word animal.
99	You are the first person to provide an updated definition - at least I thought you had - which was... "The belief that an intelligent agency created the universe." My only comment on your definition (if it was a definition) was that perhaps it should say "...designed and created..." But if you were not intending to provide a definition then that was my mistake in assuming you were and my comment is moot. And of course I'm happy to consider the thread closed if everyone feels that an updated dictionary definition of "creationism" is pointless/irrelevant.	Ironic isn't it – after weeks of seeking an answer, the thread is effectively dead – and suddenly the question of an improvied definition for the word Creationism is potentially answered...
	Re: What is a creationist Posted by A Unitarian  on 19 May 2014 at 5:53PM
100	I too grow weary of these nitpicky arguments over definitions. Whether fair or unfair Creationists are referred to in policy debates as people who believe that evolution is a refutation of their literal interpretation of the Bible. They advocate for this notion of "Intelligent Design", also called "Creation Science", is as much "science" as evolution & that it should be taught as science to refute evolution. There are in fact, many scientists who believe God worked or works through evolution. Their philosophy could also be a form of Creationism, but the term is not defined that way in this fierce debate. Perhaps people do need to define what creationism means to them when they refer to it on this board.	A very neat summary!
	Is that the end of the story? No! A few weeks later, a new thread starts...
101	A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 10 Jun 2014 at 8:08PM
102	Link and also: Link	A new topic apparently about democracy and religion. Nothing to do with dictionaries or Creationism... right?
104	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by An Atheist on 11 Jun 2014 at 3:34pm Noah Webster as inventor of the first ever dictionary? And foundling educator? He who spelt names like wimmin, soop, bred, groop, fether, tuf, hed, bilt, and so on. He was responsible for the American aluminum, rather than the British aluminium, which is fine, but then why not then have potassum, radum and the like as well? Deef for deaf, nater for nature, heerd for heard, booty for beauty, voloom for volume. And it is me, we was, them horses.  He wasn't a businessman either. He sold his rights outright instead of insisting upon royalties. After his death, in 1843, Charles and George Merriam bought the rights to his dictionary, produced a new volume - expunging many of his more ridiculous spellings, and produced the first ever Merriam-Webster dictionary. So the book with which Noah Webster is now most closely associated wasn't really his work at all.  So much for the foundling educator as well then!	An atheist notices that some of the quotes in the links on line 102 are from Noah Webster.
105	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 13 Jun 2014 at 1:26AM
106	Wow! I couldn't agree more! But where were you when JimC insisted on a specific "dictionary" definition (of his choice) for the word "creationist" and my pointing out that such a definition had been redefined through more contemporary non-dictionary sources? I have no problem whatsoever in pointing out the necessity of all dictionaries--whatever their pedigree--to pay attention to newer definitions of their words in contemporary common usage in living languages such as ours. I assume your continuing diatribe is a selective reference to those whose viewpoints disagree with yours. Very well--I still welcome your deconstruction of dictionary references in general when they fail to keep up to date on living languages and the evolving subject they may or may not accurately define! So--once again--what is your specific point regarding discussions here?	Oh No!!! Dictionaries and Creationism!! WHY?! WHY?! Diatribe? Who is providing the diatribe?! This is just gratuitous bullying of someone who makes very rare contributions to the discussions.  Shame.
107	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 13 Jun 2014 at 8:11AM
108	Here is the thread which includes the discussion on the dictionary definition of "Creationism."  I think it's an interesting case study but start at line 34 if you don't want to read it all.
109	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 15 Jun 2014 at 12:24AM
110	As I keep trying to remind you, your tautologies are not "references"--they are merely your opinions disguised as such which set out to "pre-prove" your point while ignoring the actual opposing points, and/or misrepresenting them! This particular tautology is rather easy to deconstruct. Basically it's an elaborate attempt to insist that "creationism" be defined as "the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect," and your stubborn insistence that the OED entry "define" creationism, whereas we already know that "creationism" has a much broader application as shown here: "Old Earth creationism is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including gap creationism, progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism. Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to young Earth creationism." So in summary you were caught using an obsolete definition that no longer applies, were unwilling to admit your error, and created an elaborate tautology which misrepresents the actual course of discussions on the matter. In other words, the elaborate ruse of your whole tautology was to pretend that it was the other side that was avoiding the issue whereas in fact you were the one doing so!	The Apologist has no idea what a tautology is and continues to misuse the word.  And it's obvious he does not know what it means to "deconstruct"! And again, the fallacious reference to Old Earth Creationism when the word being defined was "Creationism" I wonder how many times The Apologist has made this same mistake?  I hope it's not deliberate - that would be trolling...
111	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion osted by JimC  on 15 Jun 2014 at 12:41AM
112	See lines 51-53 and 80-83 here
113	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 15 Jun 2014 at 12:49AM
114	Both passages only prove my point! The OED reference WAS obsolete, as your survey reference showed, and your chosen wikipedia link to "creationism" also shows that there is more to the term than the dictionary definition you chose to insist on!	No it wasn't. See line 52
115	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 15 Jun 2014 at 12:56AM
116	Not according to lines 51-53 and 80-83 here
117	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 15 Jun 2014 at 12:57AM
118	I just refuted both. If you have something specific to say, please do so or concede the point.*	Ignored rather than "refuted"!
119	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 15 Jun 2014 at 1:00AM
120	I've already said it in my commentary - see lines 51-53 and 80-83 here
121	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 15 Jun 2014 at 1:02AM
122	Yes, and again I responded to--and refuted--both.	I don't think so!
123	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 15 Jun 2014 at 1:29AM
124	You can't refute facts!
125	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 15 Jun 2014 at 1:29AM
126	You certainly seem to be trying hard to!	LOL
127	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A pantheist on 15 Jun 2014 at 7:32AM
128	I'm not sure how you can say the definition in wikipedia is more accurate than the OED. wikipedia can be editted by anyone (I often do) and the OED is an official dictionary of words and definitions in current and historical usage editted by a team of lexicographers	A welcome  intervention from A Pantheist
129	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 15 Jun 2014 at 8:26AM
130	You are right - but the point is the Wikipedia entry for "creationism" which I linked to was ignored. And it was ignored because it uses the OED defintion as its opening statement.
131	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 16 Jun 2014 at 12:23AM
132	What was actually ignored--on your part--was a more accurate and inclusive definition of such. You even constructed another of your false tautologies as a means of avoiding admitting your error on the subject. Anyway, all of that has been deconstructed--but if you continue to cling to that obsolete definition of the term I'll be more than happy to continue to expose that fact!	Weird. The Apologist is referring to the Wikipedia eentry for Old earth Creationism, which I certainly didn't ignore! I explained why it's irrelevant!
133	Again, it's simple. Jim offered a dictionary definition of "creationism" (OED Dictionary in this case--it might have been any other obsolete reference regarding the subject) with the following claim:
134	"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
135	Link to OED
136	A Creationist  and I SPECIFICALLY updated that narrow definition of "creationism" in the modern sense by refuting such:	Updated the OED? Refuted the OED?
137	"Old Earth creationism is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including gap creationism, progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism. Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to young Earth creationism."	How can you update a definition by using a definition of a different word? LOL
138	Link to OEC
139	And even: "Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation...Today, the American Scientific Affiliation, a prominent religious organisation in the US, recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Abrahamic belief that God "created the universe."	All true. And does not contradict the dictionary definition.
140	Link to Wikipedia
141	So, in other words, the definition of "creationism" in the OED--which SPECIFICALLY states that creationism is ONLY linked to the viewpoint in Genesis and rejects an evolutionary basis for such, has been shown to be out of date--no ifs, ands or buts!	The OED makes no mention of Genesis, but in any case, Old Earth Creationists do not disagree with the Genesis "viewpoint" - they interpret it to suit!
144	So the question yet again - why are you personally defending an obsolete dictionary definition - Since Jim doesn't have an honest leg to stand on regarding this particular point, yet he hates to concede ANYTHING and has constructed an elaborate (and deconstructed) tautology in a desperate attempt to avoid having to admit his error, why have you not examined and critically commented on such?	Oh dear... more bullying of someone who had the temerity to join in the discussion.  And again... "tautology". LOL
145	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Pantheist on 16 Jun 2014 at 5:59AM
146	because I happen to believe the OED is correct
147	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 16 Jun 2014 at 8:22AM
148	You "refuted" the dictionary definition of creationism by providing a Wikipedia reference to "old earth creationism" and then deliberately ignoring the Wikipedia entry for "creationism" (because it refers to the dictionary definition that I provided).
149	There are different types of creationism (as I explained) and I also explained how different types of creationist interpret genesis. Saying the dictionary definition of creationism is wrong by linking to the Wikipedia entry for old earth creationism is like saying the dictionary definition of flower is wrong by linking to the Wikipedia entry for daffodil.
150	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 18 Jun 2014 at 12:11AM
151	Quite the opposite. Your wikipedia link stated the matter correctly: "Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation." For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalistic reading of the Book of Genesis and the rejection of evolution... this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation, such as the acceptance of the age of the Earth and biological evolution as understood by the scientific community."	OK - we both agree on that!
152	Link to wikipedia
153	Please try to follow the logic:	Ironic! And I see the daffodil example has been ignored!
154	You provided the following OED definition of "creationism":
155	"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."	Yes I did!!
156	I provided a link which disproves that definition:	No you didn't.
157	"Old Earth creationism is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including gap creationism, progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism.[1] Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to young Earth creationism."	This is an explanation of Old Earth Creationism. It is not a definition of Creationism.
158	Even more simply:
159	Source A says all of B believe C.
160	Source D shows that not all of B believe C.	Actually Source D shows that all of X believe Y where X is a subset of B and Y is a variant of C
161	Therefore, source A is incorrect on this matter.	No - source A is  defining C.
162	I hope that helps!	It didn't!
163	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 18 Jun 2014 at 2:03PM
164	The dictionary definition is complete. (Don't judge the OED by the limited snapshots available free online). I was asked for a definition of the root word creationism and not the various types of creationism. Criticising that definition is like criticising the dictionary definition of "rock" because it doesn't define "progressive rock".
165	This dictionary saga began because someone referred to himself as "a Creationist" and that was the word I was asked to define. As it happens I had provided definitions of the various flavours of creationism - old earth, young earth, creation science etc. at the start of the thread - although I wasn't asked to. I also explained to said Creationist how his type of creationism is related to "intelligent design" and the Biblical creation story.
166	As an aside, I think it's worth noting the distance between the subject of this thread and the current discussion*. How did that happen? Another entry for the archive!	On line 106... The topic was democracy and religion, suddenly it becomes the dictionary definition of Creationism!
167	* 4.5 billion light years approx.
168	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 19 Jun 2014 at 12:13AM
169	I welcome the fact that you seem to be backtracking from the definition you insisted was correct. You now state that the OED online definition that you yourself supplied and insisted on is now a "limited snapshot." Somewhat schizophrenically though you still state that the dictionary definition is "complete." You are a very intelligent person but perhaps your confusion prevents you from understanding the logic of the matter. Let's try it again:	Unusual application of the word "fact"!  Of course the concise dictionary is a snapshot, but that doesn't mean it's not complete or inaccurate.
170	Your dictionary definition--again, the definition you provided and still insist is "complete"--defines "creationism" as "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution." Your definition, your link:
171	Link to OED	Again!
172	I have specifically proven that "creationism" encompasses a broader spectrum than that provided by the definition in your link: "Old Earth creationism is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including gap creationism, progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism. Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to young Earth creationism."	Wrong again. And why do we need a comparison to Young Earth Creationism? But I like the spectrum analogy. Creationism defines the spectrum. Old Earth Creationism is one colour within that spectrum.  Young Earth Creationism is another colour.
173	So, once again: if the claims in your link are proven false--specifically the claim that "creationism" ONLY stipulates that the term apply to those who reject evolution and "natural" processes, in what sense is your dictionary definition "complete" and why do you continue to attempt to defend such?	The OED has not been proven false. Just the oppposite. The dictionary definition of Creationism is complete because it defines the world Creationism
174	Did you provide definitions of the various flavours of creationism - old earth, young earth, creation science etc. at the start of the thread ? That still doesn't account for the fact that you have insisted/still insist on a definition that is wrong, nor does it account for the fact that you composed an entire false tautology in support of such error!	Yes I did!!!  On line 8 about 100 years ago. An the fallacious tautology reference again!
175	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 19 Jun 2014 at 7:15AM
176	The dictionary definition is complete because Creationists of all types do not accept that evolution is purely the result of "natural processes" - they believe that there was a specific act (or were specific acts) of divine creation somewhere in that process. There's a very simple way to demonstrate the accuracy of the dictionary definition, by considering two questions:
177	First question... are you a Creationist?
178	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 12:43AM
179	Give it up, Jim! Your reference specifically states that creationists interpret Genesis literally and specifically states that they reject evolution! As applied to all creationists, what part of that definition being wrong can't you accept?	Wait a minute... Does The Apologist think that the dictionary definition says Genesis is interpreted literally?!  Maybe that's why he keeps countering it with a definition of old earth creationism!
180	And as for your question: Don't play games, Jim--I'll answer your questions when you address and acknowledge my point: your chosen dictionary definition not only doesn't define creationism comprehensively but is in specific error by misrepresenting the term. Check my logic above--I hope you understand the matter and comment on it--thanks!	Play games! Oh the irony!  Actually I suspect The Apologist will never answer the question, because it will reveal that he's an Old Earth Creationist who fits the dictionary definition of Creationist.
181	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 12:49AM
182	I am unable to see the words "literally" or "reject" in the OED definition.  Now let's try the question again - are you a Creationist?
183	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religionPosted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 12:55AM
184	Fine--I'll quote your definition word for word again:	Interesting - completely avoids answering the question regarding the use of the word "literally" and "reject"
185	"The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."	That's what the OED says.  A masterpience of succinctness and accuracy.
186	Now--please address the point of whether that is an accurate and comprehensive definition of "creationism."	Again? OK!
187	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 12:58AM
188	Yes it is an accurate definition of Creationism and it's as comperehensive as a concise dictionary definition can be.
189	But I'm still confused - where does it say "literally" and "reject"
190	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 1:07AM
191	I said I would go with your definition. it "literally" states that "creationists" believe living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the Biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution (hence "rejecting" the latter).	This is hilarious! Compare what the Apologist said on line 179 with this.  Is this an example of delusion, or trolling?
192	Re: A few further quotes about democracy and religion Posted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 1:17AM
193	That definition is correct.  Creationists believe that living organisms are the result of acts of divine creation as in the Biblical account - they all believe the Bible to be true. Different types of creationist interpret the Biblical account in different ways.  Some creationists reject evolution completely, some believe in a limited process of plus divine creation - some believe that the processes of evolution are not entirely natural, but "guided" by God.  Creationists of all types agree that evolution is not entirely the result of natural processes and that science cannot fully explain the evolution of life. Some will argue that science demonstrate the validity of the Biblical account.	I should have explained this earlier I suppose. Perhaps I should also explain that Young Earth Creationists do not base their Young Earth idea from the creation story. They calculate the age of the earth from the genealogy from Adam to Abraham.
	And so we finally discover that for all these weeks, The Apologist imagined the OED... "states that creationists interpret Genesis literally and specifically states that they reject evolution!"  But of course it doesn't.  However, it is now clear that The Apologist was imagining that the OED definition of Creationism was a definition of Young Earth Creationism, even though the definition says nothing at all about the age of the earth. But that's not the end of the saga. Another new thread begins, this time about Old Earth Creationism...
194	A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by JimC  on 19 Jun 2014 at 11:00PM
195	How do Old Earth Creationists reconcile the facts of evolution with the specific acts of divine creation described in the Bible? Here's one explanation...
196	Old earth creationists contend that...  Darwinian evolution (change through unguided naturalistic processes) is unbiblical, biologically untenable, and not supported by the fossil record.   The Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God and believe the Genesis creation account to be historical narrative—not myth, allegory, legend or poetic expression.  Genesis 1 is a literal account of God’s creation.   After God created the heavens and the earth, He then created life over six successive “days,” which in the original Hebrew may be literally interpreted as long epochs of time.  God miraculously created Adam and Eve, humanity’s historical parents, who were new distinct creatures from whom humanity’s sin originated.  Adam and Eve were at the headwaters of the human race and the result of special creation Old-earth creationists adamantly reject the Darwinian concept of common descent—the hypothesis that all plant, animal, and human life ultimately evolved from primitive single-celled organisms through unguided mutations and naturalistic processes. Old-earth creationists believe God supernaturally created all life over long ages of time, allowing early species to die out and then create new species, “renewing the face of the ground” (Psalm 104:29-30).  Old Earth Creationists accept the geologic record as an indication of the age of the earth, but contrary to evolutionists, believe the fossil record more correctly reflects God’s creation of life rather than evolution.  Complex Cambrian life-forms just suddenly appeared, in agreement with Genesis 1:20-23.  Those are just a few extracts from this  comprehensive article
197	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 12:47AM
198	Or, on the other hand, one can say that Scripture is accurate for its purpose--that is, to teach us God's will and purposes given our understanding (or lack thereof) of peripheral matters. Whatever the case, we are presented with another of your false "either/or" choices on the matter. "Old Earth Creationism" can encompass a vast variety of perspectives, and--just as your dictionary definition of "creationism" was wrong and out of date--your chosen link can't speak either for all of the latest developments in this very dynamic field. I do note, however, that my link for "Old Earth Creationism" stated that "Old Earth creationism is typically (more) compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology, and the age of the earth" which would put it at odds with the claims in your article.	Oh dear. Here we go again.  The Apologist seems to have forgotten that he actually didn't understand the dictionary definition at all. It's not wrong or out of date.  The idea that Old Earth Creationism is a "very dynamic field" is hilarious! And the article actually agrees with what the Apologist says here. It is not "at odds at all" - unless he's referring to a different article maybe?
199	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 12:51AM
200	When you reer to "my article" - are you referring to the article written by a Christian Old Earth Creationist? If so I fail to see where your explanation of old earth creationism is at odds with the claims in the article. Can you give an example?
201	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 1:26AM
202	Your article is an opinion piece by someone claiming that perspective, and was written for the specific purpose of presenting "Old Earth Creationism" for consideration by Young Earth proponents within a particular denomination.	Huh? It's an article by an old earth creationist explaining how the Bible supports old earth creationism. Just like the Wikipedia article.
203	The author takes a narrower view of Old Earth Creationism than my Wikipedia link. The article may also be somewhat out of date, as I stated.	No he doesn't. Also it seems The Apologist feels Wikipedia is an authoritative source. I wonder if he knows what his source is?
204	I'll ignore your "interpretation" of the article and quote from the article itself: "Old-Earth Creationism (AKA “day-age” or “progressive” creationism) is distinct from other types of creationism, namely Gap theory, Framework Hypothesis, and Theistic Evolution." My Wikipedia article included all of those within the subject of such: "Old Earth creationism is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including gap creationism, progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism."	Interpretation? I don't remember providing an interpretation! Anyway, this seems to show that the article I provided aligns with what Wikipedia says abot Old Earth Creationism. Hardly surprising - they are similar sources.
205	OEC needn't be bound by your attempts to straitjacket its overall purview per your summary above.	What makes him think I was trying to "straitjacket" anything? But again, I wonder if he knows who wrote the Wikipedia article?
206	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 1:34AM
207	Do you know who wrote the sentence from Wikipedia that you've quoted? Have you looked at the source they've cited?
208	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 1:40AM
209	Have you, and what difference would it make?	Yes I have. Why would anyone not check their sources?
210	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 1:47AM
211	Yes I have. It's vital when referring to Wikipedia to check where the information is coming from. That's why the article you've linked to has the warning message regarding citations.  Click here to see the first source that the author of your wikipedia article cites... ... and click here to see the source that I used.	And so we see the Wikipedia source is also "an opinion piece by someone claiming that perspective."
212	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 1:56AM
213	Again that begs the point in this case as the term itself provides the basis for a broad definition: Old Earth Creationists believe in an "old earth" in which God has brought about through various means--period. Nice attempt at another misdirect though.	Misdirect? Surely we both agree on this?
214	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 2:02AM
215	Yes - we both agree that Old Earth Creationists believe in an old earth which God has brought about through various means.
216	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 2:11AM
217	Very well--so obviously that encompasses a broad consideration of how such came about, not limited to the specific definition in the OED that you provided and defended	I've lost count, but yet again, he's missed the point that the OED defines Creationism, not Old Earth Creationism. And that was a different topic!
218	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism osted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 2:16AM
219	First of all, the OED definition you refer to was for "Creationism" - not "Old Earth Creationism" - and was a separate topic. This topic is about how Old Earth Creationists make a Biblical case for their beliefs - in other words, how to reconcile the belief in an old earth and the belief in divine creation, as in the biblical account. The points I provided in the first post, and the associated article, explain that.
220	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 2:25AM
221	OEC is as much a factor in the definition of "creationism" as YEC is, and your definition only recognized the latter sub perspective. I note again that you have claimed that your proffered definition was "complete."	We're getting close - eventually!  Yes OEC and YEC are part of Creationism but now it is finally confirmed that The Apologist has assumed all along that the Oxford English Dictionary definition of Creationism is actually a definition of Young Earth Creationism.  Perhaps he hasn't been a troll after all, but genuinely confused.
222	Plus your article explains the matter only from a specific perspective, for a specific purpose, from someone within a specific denomination. It is not a definitive offering.	Well good luck finding a "definitive offering" for Old Earth Creationism!
223	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 2:37AM
224	OEC and YEC are types and aspects of Creationism. The dictionary definition of Creationism defines the general concept of Creationism and therefore the features that OEC and YEC have in common. Similarly, the dictionary definition fo Jazz defines the word Jazz. Smooth jazz, trad jazz, modern jazz, acid jazz and all other types of jazz are separate subjects. Can we stick to the topic of this thread please?
225	This topic is limited to explaining how Old Earth Creationists make a Biblical case for their beliefs - in other words, how to reconcile the belief in an old earth and the belief in divine creation, as in the biblical account. The article I provided is from the perspective of an Old Earth Creationist, and so is the article you provided (via wikipedia).  So, regarding the article I provided - is there anything in there you disagree with?
226	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by A Christian Apologist  on 21 Jun 2014 at 3:05AM
227	the OED definition of creationism assumes a YEC perspective--and you again fail to defend the fact that you have claimed that this definition is "complete." On the other hand, I welcome the fact that you have stated that your proffered definition is "complete" and your inability/unwillingness to admit that you're wrong on the matter.	No it doesn't!  It makes no reference at all to the age of the earth.  YEC is based on the genealogy from Adam to Abraham. Not the creation myth. How does the Apologist get that impression?
228	None of those definitions of "jazz" excludes those sub categories. Your proffered definition of "creationism" does. You're only digging yourself into a deeper hole and further destroying your overall credibility with your misdirects and unwillingness to concede the point!	But that's the point. The OED definition of Creationism does not exclude the types of Creationism.
229	I needn't address your further points because they build on your initial false pretext! Let's examine the issue from the standpoint of basic logic yet again: Source A states B believes in C. Source D points out that not all B believe in C. Therefore source A is wrong on this matter. Please respond on topic to such--thanks!	Oh dear... the same logic failure we saw on line 160
230	Re: A Biblical Case for Old Earth Creationism Posted by JimC  on 21 Jun 2014 at 3:18AM
231	The OED definition does not assume a YEC perspective or an OEC perspective. It is a definition of Creationism - and the dictionary definition of Creationism is off topic in this thread and covered in a separate thread. The topic in this thread is how old earth creationists reconcile that belief with the biblical accounts of divine creation. Is there anything in the article I provided that you disagree with? I would assume it's very close to your belief, but I could be wrong. I'd be interested to know of any specific points of difference.
232	...and that's the end of the discussion (so far!) Did The Apologist finally realise he'd misunderstood the Oxford English Dictionary definition? Or was the misunderstanding just trolling? We will never know...