Creationist writing style

So right.The malapropisms are good for a chuckle too. A couple of my favourites are "elude" used for "allude" and "et al" used for "etc".

emperically speaking the colliliary seems to factor a learning disorder ... Is there a Jonathon Livingston Sequel? EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm still bemused at someone putting an argument forward based on a supposed understanding of chirality but who was consistently unable to actually spell chirality, what was that all about.TTFN,WK

I beg to differ. NJ is fine most of the time. But try to read his posts on some of the more complicated issues.CTD's posts are fine if you read them sentence by sentence. But by the end, you will ask yourself "how did he get from A to D?Phat is nortorious for going off in la-la-land when he tries to prove god (or the need to believe in god) to us.Buz is very clear most of the time IFF you read his messages sentence by sentence. But again, he has a habit of not answering the question and instead address the question with something that is so off the wall that it's not even wrong. This has made many people, including myself, very frustrated.Don't even get me started with Faith. Um, no, they're just crackpots. I've always wanted to see him talk with Brad McFall. In fact, if there is a forum where you have to pay to see what's going on and there's Brad and CFO debating with each other, I would be willing to pay up to $20 just to see how they'd communicate with each other. But these mistakes are understandable. We're not trying to crank out perfect english papers here. But you are at least kind enough to write in a linear fashion so we wouldn't have to spend that much time deciphering your posts.The way I write is the way I talk. Sometimes I will actually say out loud something to make sure it makes sense and sounds coherent before I write it down. This is how I automatically avoid run-ons and whatnot.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Spellings I can forgive. To me, it's just a small part of the larger picture. It's the specific combination of the words that bothers me sometimes. You've just unleashed a demon in me that's been locked up for many many years. I was in spelling bee. Got knocked down by a word I can't remember right now. What got me really mad was the guy right after me was asked to spell "pizza". #*%^#*&%&^%%$$&%&^#^*!!!! Pizza in a spelling bee? What on Earth were they thinking? The guy was older than me, too.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

We've forgotten to mention the def stylings of the not-exactly-a-creationist-but-sort-of RiverRat.And then there is Mike the Wiz with his word salad pseudo-logic.

My personal favorite was one that ray brought up a long time ago when quoting phrases by Gene Scott. He did not take too kindly to my calling Gene Scott a phony prick for using these terms however I simply could not let it go.

quote:

---

High-resolution geochemical analyses of organic-rich shale and carbonate through the 2500 million-year-old Mount McRae Shale in the Hamersley Basin of northwestern Australia record changes in both the oxidation state of the surface ocean and the atmospheric composition. The Mount McRae record of sulfur isotopes captures the widespread and possibly permanent activation of the oxidative sulfur cycle for perhaps the first time in Earth's history. The correlation of the time-series sulfur isotope signals in northwestern Australia with equivalent strata from South Africa suggests that changes in the exogenic sulfur cycle recorded in marine sediments were global in scope and were linked to atmospheric evolution. The data suggest that oxygenation of the surface ocean preceded pervasive and persistent atmospheric oxygenation by 50 million years or more.

---

or

quote:

---

In eva-1(ev751), a point mutation in exon 4 changes the second conserved Cys of the second lectinlike domain to a Tyr (Cys186 Tyr186) [supporting online material (SOM)] (fig. S1B). The eva-1(tm0974) allele is deleted for base pairs (bp) 5477 to 5994 in the genomic sequence of cosmid F32A7. Splicing around this would delete residues 111 to 223, predicting an in-frame protein of the size observed on Western blots (fig. S2).

---

or

quote:

---

It is possible that as hypothesized previously, hair cell keratinization protects the DNA within hair shafts from contact with free water, a requisite of the hydrolytic deamination underlying CT damage (16). DNA may also be conserved because the hair, in contrast to porous bone, prevents access of bacteria to the site of DNA storage, thereby restricting the breakdown of biopolymers. Alternatively, the observation may be explained by other as-yet untested hypotheses. For example, special properties of hair shaft keratinocytes may confer advantages, such as an absence of postmortem cell autolysis; other molecules within the hair shaft (e.g., melanin) may provide protection; or the relatively unique preservation conditions that hair preservation in the archaeological record requires may in turn limit DNA degradation.

---

Thoughts?Edited by Mr Jack, : Added more examples

These examples are written in clear, matter-of-fact English. Their intended readers would understand the technical terms used. They do need close attention to be understood, but why should that be a problem in technical writing?My favourite example of complex, but amazingly clear writing is Charles Darwin's summary about natural selection. It is also something of a triumph of punctuation. Edited by Woodsy, : small fixupsEdited by Woodsy, : added punctuation comment

Really? I don't think many people could understand them. It isn't, but it isn't "clear, matter-of-fact English" either.More to the point, I think you only need to look at examples like these (all three taken, btw, from the 28th September issue of Science) to understand why Creationists write how they do - without understanding texts such as these, they try to copy the form.(As for your example from Darwin, I think his writing style is overly verbose and thus more difficult to understand than it needs to be).Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

That's not really the point in a technical journal. A general reader, if equipped with a good dictionary, could make some headway. If this material was in, say, Scientific American, and intended for a general audience, one would indeed demand a good deal of explanation.These examples, however, do not show the pomposity I complained of. The fancy words are technical jargon; without them, the text would have to be many times longer. I am not an expert in these fields, but I do not see a lot of words that could be replaced with simpler ones, or how the meaning could be conveyed in shorter pieces of text.Anyway, I have done a good deal of scientific writing myself, and it may be that I am just used to that kind of style. I expect you are quite right.

Wow. It's like I'm marking GCSE papers again. I think I'd write "see me" on this one LOL.

I don't think Mike ever got away from his creationist root. If you compare his old posts to his newer ones, you would notice that the only thing that changed was he replaced "god" with "logic". Same bogus arguments, though.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Many of the posters you complain about (about whom you complain) have all the characteristics of chatterbots - computer programs designed to produce humanlike writings. They are usually based on Eliza or A.L.I.C.E., both developed at MIT's Artificial Intelligence lab. These characteristics are: endless repetition of several stock catch phrases, responding to other posts without really responding, and a discernible absence of intelligence and logical constructs. My guess is that Ray Martinez, or whatever pseudonym he (it) is currently using is just such a chatterbox and that we are being hoodwinked. I also think that Buzsaw is a Jekyl/Hyde construct that oscillates between human and chatterbot operation. If you want further information on this topic, I refer you to the works of Gladishev.

Can't say for sure, but I did notice your post to be particularly verbose.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias