Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
440 bytes added ,  19:15, December 26, 2007
reply
Line 4: Line 4:     
While the etymology would I'm sure be interesting, there is a simpler road to take.  Namely, an "-ist" is a person who subscribes to an "-ism" (philosophy) or engages in some kind of practice.  Thus a creationist is simply one who holds that creation is an element of reality.  It doesn't have to be any more specific than that, and the identification needn't carry any connotative baggage.  [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:01, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 
While the etymology would I'm sure be interesting, there is a simpler road to take.  Namely, an "-ist" is a person who subscribes to an "-ism" (philosophy) or engages in some kind of practice.  Thus a creationist is simply one who holds that creation is an element of reality.  It doesn't have to be any more specific than that, and the identification needn't carry any connotative baggage.  [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 14:01, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
: First of all, thanks for your correction to my mistake in [[dot product]].
 +
 +
: To your point above, however, the term "creationist" would ostensibly apply to anyone who accepts a creation.  But that is not how the term is used, which makes it confusing.  Also, it is often used in a pejorative manner as an expression of bigotry, making it unsuitable for enlightened discourse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,256

edits

Navigation menu