You claim that you “hear” what I write, but it’s clear that you suffer the same reading comprehension problems from which all Propagandists suffer: you “hear” only what your schemes permit you to hear; you “see” only what your schemes permit you to see.

You allege that Creationism “as defined” is useless. “As defined” by whom? Your allegation “as defined” is an abject confession that you can only proceed if you are allowed to dictate terms and meanings, and your incessant crying and moaning is an abject confession that you are aware that you are not being allowed to advance your propaganda unopposed. And in front of the entire Forum assembly too! How shameful and embarrassing for you!

Now, you allege that my use of definitions is “non standard.” Which definitions?
the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003?
the Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937?
the The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary?
the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 11th Edition – which shows no change since 1880?
the Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. 2005?
the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.?
the Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition?
or, perhaps the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA?
How are they “non standard”? Do you rate yourself superior to all the authorities represented by the above publications? By whose authority are they deemed “non standard”? Explain in detail how this is so, or stand exposed as a fraud.

You are quite correct in saying that Christianity and Creationism are not synonymous. Of course not. Creationism is a tenet of Christianity; the most important tenet; That the Judeo-Christian God is the Creator of the Universe, and of Mankind. What is your point in asserting something not in dispute? Do you think it somehow salvages your soiled reputation?