And as you well know, the term creationists refers to a whole host of things, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, the idea that the earth is around 6000 years old, that all the fossil evidence is misinterpreted and much more. Not just that God was involved in creation. Taking that one aspect and saying that everyone who thinks that God (whatever that means) was involved (ditto) in creation (ditto again) is also a creationist is at the very least unwise because of the confusion it will cause.

And as YOU well know, I'm a very simple man. The quoted passage here is obfuscation personified.

And yet you get very hot under the collar (while somehow remaining ice-cold) when someone claims in that simplicity you have over-simplified something.

That passage you quoted is not concerned with creationism: it is concerned with how people communicate. Words have meanings and when you say you intend to use a word in a way that is significantly different from how everyone in the world interprets it I say that is unwise. Isn't that simple enough for you?   It may not be, I realise, since a few posts earlier you failed to understood that a public forum the word 'we' does not necessarily mean 'you'.

To stress again, it is about trying to get effective communication by ensuring words are going to be understood by the reader rather than inventing your own personal meaning which can do nothing but harm communication.

You say I fail to answer the questions you pose, I say I do answer them but not to your satisfaction. But let's have one last attempt at the impossible and answer your questions.

Did God create the universe or not?
As always, you fall into the 'excluded middle' logical error.
The statement 'To the best of our understanding the universe came into existence with any need for God' is true. God is not needed for any such explanation. I'm not sure if you are happy with that, but even if you are you won't be happy with the next bit. Nevertheless, it is also true to say I believe God created the Universe.


Is it better to tell children lies than tell them the truth?
Of course not: tell the truth. No question about that.
But does it then follow that we have a common understanding of what is a lie? No, we don't.


So we are onto the repetition bit again, and once again you seem to want to make this some sort of mental wrestling match between us. I'm not interested, sorry. I present my views and (repeating once again!)
I think it entirely up to you whether you abuse them, ignore them, think you can learn something even where you disagree or whatever. Equally I am interested in learning other people views. Examining and questioning others views in the interest of learning something? Well and good. But if things deteriorate into "Who won the fight?" I have no interest. And as you appear to have settled once again into the same old rut where you are no longer interesting in exchanging ideas but simply shouting your own, I will take another leave of absence. Last time it was some 300 posts before I came back (no, Steve, I haven't counted them: that's an estimate) so I anticipate a similar absence if the thread is still going them.