Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

After wading through countless threads on this forum, I think I can understand why you would ask this.But I have to say that I don't think you give "creationists" (in the broadest sense) enough credit for rational thought.I've read some very cogent and well thought out arguments, and some that appear internally consistent, easy to understand and, on the surface, convincing.An example I might use is Lee Stroble's _The Case for a Creator_. While it is what one might justly refer to as "Pop Apologetics", the interviews which are covered contain internal logic, are easy to follow, and it becomes apparent that the folks defending their positions are at least intelligent and well versed in the topics they are discussing. Whether or not they are correct in their conclusions is obviously debatable, but you are asking if they understand their own positions, which I think they do. While many of the arguments essentially present a false dichotomy -- if the origin of life (as opposed to the origin of species) cannot at present be proven, then the Judeo Christian creator must be true -- this does not mean they do not understand their own arguments.But I do understand the frustration. As an example, I worked with a couple of very devout Mormons for a while. They were good people with good families (why do I feel it necessary to say that?) but when it came to discussions on history or religion, I felt like I was banging my head against a wall. That's because their conception of the history of the American continents was shaped almost entirely by their religion and the Book of Mormon, along with a hundred and fifty years of bizarre apologetics. So, to them it was a given that the native peoples on the continent were the decedents of Hebrews, that vast empires clashed here in battles like Cumorah, etc. Any archaeological find or footnote of history was mangled and wedged into this narrative. It wasn't that they didn't understand their own arguments, it's that they couldn't understand *my* arguments because what I might present was totally outside of their frame of reference, i.e. American continents not populated by throngs of Hebrews. I guess my point is, maybe they are asking the same question about you: "do evolutionists not even understand their own arguments?"But I wouldn't use the rambling responses of some on these boards to come to the conclusion that all creationists are stupid, crazy, or perhaps just pathologically dishonest. There are plenty of extremely smart people out there who believe in a creator, and I'd be willing to bet that a few of them could give folks on this board a run for their money. At least, so long as they don't try to prove that there was a global flood 4,500 years ago

I took the title of the thread ("Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?") as being broad in context.Perhaps what should be presented is a few linked examples of exchanges between secularists and the named creationists in post 1, in order to show what might lead a person to think that these "crackpots" might not know what they are talking about. (or would that exceed a post length limit? )The only reason I suggest this is that someone happening upon this site and this topic might just see this thread and see it as a bunch of evolutionists slinging mud. I'm not saying that *is* what is happening (having read through, as an example, a number of threads on the Flood that just made my head hurt). I have no doubt that there are plenty of creationists who visit this site and read through the threads without ever signing up, or perhaps visit as registered users without posting. Seeing you point out what you may consider to be inconsistent or even nonsensical arguments may cue up some creationists to enter the fray who are better equipped to have a rational, point by point debate.