Arthur V. Chadwick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:39:02 -0700
At 12:00 PM 10/11/97 -0700, Gordon wrote:
>What you're missing, Arthur, is that I agree completely with the New World
>definition of 'creationist'! Your definition, however, is not the same as
>the New World definiton. Your definition is "the origin of matter and of
>distinct species of animals and plants to acts of creation by God [in six
>24-hour days several thousand years ago]."
Did I give that definition? I am sorry, but I looked back through recent
correspondence in vain for any use of a definition anywhere, and didn't
So I don't know where you came up with my definition of creationist (but am
willing to be corrected). I am quite content with Webster's definition in
a secular setting (so long as we can use "species" in a nontechnical
sense). Ergo we agree. End of discussion. Interesting.