Creationism is nonsense

OK. My apologies for misunderstanding your compliment. That said, just because some other individual intersubjectively agreed with your interpretation doesn't mean you're entitled to claim your interpretation is objectively proper. Likewise, I shared my anticipation because you shared what you were going after in trying to get a creationist to debate you. You seemed personally interested in motives, so I was being friendly there. I also agree that the definition you provided is a possible definition of "nonsense", but it is not the only definition of "nonsense". The key to your definition is the presumption of sensation in the definition of justified true beliefs. That is it's presumed that concretely sensational perspective is primarily required for meaning to be judged. However, this isn't necessarily the case. Judgment can also be abstract. People can engage in creative thinking, problem solving, imagination, idealism, vision, and rational thought to derive meaningful conclusions as well. In fact, this is often one of the arguments commonly used by atheists since divinity can be associated with fate. For example, theists often believe in predestined callings such that some people are chosen by God to bring light to the world. An atheist can argue in favor of rational free will instead a la universalist humanism. That is everyone is entitled to be treated equally based around who they are as individuals on the inside that counts. No subset of humanity is entitled to social status. However, this still doesn't mean "nonsense" has no meaning. The possibility of abstract judgments does not eliminate the possibility of concrete perspectives. Your claim of "no good reason" jumps to conclusions as well. Again, I agree with you wholeheartedly that creationism is wrong and that it inhibits global competitiveness, but what's nonsense and what's wrong aren't necessarily the same thing. The sensability of creationism comes from the teleological proof where it's derived from the overwhelming abundance of beauty in nature that someone had to create the world. That is it's practically judged from Occam's Razor that it's ridiculous to believe that the functionality of nature just randomly came about. Instead, there must be some purpose behind everything, and that purpose must have been assigned by an assigner. The problem is this assumes legitimacy in practical judgment as well as Occam's Razor. What's practical is subjective, and Occam's Razor is similarly dependent on the subjectivity of what qualifies as a simple enough model or sufficient explanatory power. In fact, you often encounter this problem when discussing creationism with creationists. They'll give you the excuse of, "Give me a break. Do you really expect everything around us to have just randomly come about without some higher power's artificial input?" That is creationists are engaging in probabilistic reasoning to make an appeal to absurdity. THAT is where creationism is wrong. Probabilities are not necessities, and appeals to absurdity depend on how much people are willing to investigate the world. A creationist is basically too lazy to engage in a deeper scientific method to investigate how the world really works. Does this mean a creationist's perspective is nonsense? No, but it still means a creationist's judgment is wrong. To properly criticize creationism, you need to distinguish perspective from judgment.