Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

Hello evc. I have been lurking more than participating because life's been busy.That said, the more I read the posts of recent creationist posts the more my head hurts. Sure, my IQ may not be that high, but I'd like to think that I'm coherent enough most of the time to communicate with people.How do I know I'm coherent enough to communicate accurately with people? Just 4 months ago I gave a lecture on the importance of bond strength between the reinforcement material in concrete (i.e. steel) and the concrete itself in regard to structural integrity. There were lots of questions afterward about the very things I mentioned, so clearly people understood me farely well in order for them to reflect on the info I threw at them and formulated their questions accordingly.But when I read posts by Bertot, IamJoseph, and other creationists, I kept scratching my head and tried to re-read their words again. I am finding myself having a very difficult time understanding what the hell they are saying. It's not just their logic I'm having trouble understanding. It's also the immediate things they say that I have trouble understanding.Take a look at the problems in big bang theory thread, for example. Can anyone here honestly say they understood what the hell IamJoseph was talking about?My question to you guys is do you think these "crackpots" even know what the hell they are talking about? Or do you think they only have a vague sense of what they want to say and so they stumble through with non-sensical sentences and jibberish?

Speakingn of that, where did they all go? Last I checked the rapture hadn't occurred yet. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

If it makes you feel better, you're not the only one who has a problem with AdminPD's attitude here. Personally, I've always thought APD is the most biased A of them all, but that's just my humble opinion.Regarding my trouble understanding your posts as well as posts made by others of your kind, I'm not the only one. There are many here who are a lot more educated, coherent, and patient who agree with me that they can't understand you most of the time.I actually got a big fat D on an English paper in high school. I still remember it to this day even though it feels like that was 50 years ago. I actually thought that paper was a piece of art. I absolutely did not understand why I received a D. So, I went to the teacher and argued and argued and argued. I went away with a very bitter feeling. I was convinced that the paper made perfect sense. Well, about a couple years later, I was cleaning out my old stuff and found the paper. I saw the D and remembered. I started reading it and was really embarrassed at how bad of a writer I was.The point is I eventually came away from that with a much humbler attitude. Sure, at the time what I wrote in that paper made perfect sense to me. But my more mature self completely disagreed. Unfortunately, the paper has been lost in the passages of time. And I have no recollection what it was about. But I do remember feeling really embarrassed while reading it a couple years later.Take it for what it's worth. I'm not the only one saying I can't understand you guys most of the time. Ask other people here. We have professionals of every field here.

Gee, where do you work that requires people to pretend they grew up with English?

This is, perhaps, the best idea I have seen in a while. Perhaps this will not prove anything, but at least we'll be able to see if creationists can comprehend each other or if they will have the same trouble understanding each other the same way that we have trouble understanding them.

Apparently, you don't have much of a reading comprehension skill after all.Here is what I said. I have no idea how you could interpret that to mean I asserted that you guys cannot understand each other.

Absolutely. I doubt myself all the time, which is why I started this thread to ask other people if they can understand you guys on a consistent basis or not.

I think I'm beginning to see a pattern. having taken quite a few philosophy classes when I was in college, particularly modern (or post modern) philosophy, I've seen some people try to immitate the post-modern writing style. From what I've been able to gather, these individuals can't tell the difference between genuine philosophical works and really bad English (I'm not so sure there is that much of a difference). So, they just end up writing sentences that are less than stellar thiking they've created post-modern-like style sentences when in fact they're just really bad English.

Many people have complained from time to time how certain people throughout history have hidden their nonsense in verbose. The most recent that comes to my mind is a book called Fashionably Nonsense by Sokol. It describes in great detail how certain philosophers throughout history have written pretty much nonsense but were praise by the philosophical community for their supposed briliance.

I, too, have had bitter experience with having a typo and getting burned from it.Back when I was a cop, one time I wrote a memo on my whereabouts during the night in question. I had to quickly crank out this report after having worked a night shift and then immediately going straight to court to testify first thing in the morning. So, at some point in my memo, I said 2:15 instead of 12:15. I left out the 1 before the 2.Anyway, I ended up with 2 charges because of that stupid typo, one for dishonesty and the other for unbecoming an officer. No matter how much I tried to explain to those clowns in the higher ups that it was a goddamn typo, they kept accusing me of being trapped in "a web of lies".The memo read something like this. At 11pm I was at point A. At 2:15, I was at point B. Then I proceeded to go to point C at 1:30. How the fuck could it have been a lie if the following sentence clearly said I went to point C at 1:30. Common sense would have told them I meant 12:15 instead of 2:15. Goddamn bastards having no common sense.Anyway, it just seems counter-productive to write out a non-sensible string of verbose like how buz and other creationists tend to do. Hence my original question.

So, which is it? IamJoe either really talks like that (referring to my female reproduction thread) or he's gotten so used to trying to sound academically inclined. He can't write a single sentence in a straight forward manner. He has to write it in obfuscating verbose. May be he's trying to make himself sound like a wise old man who knows all?