Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

No, I was simply saying if you dont understand something ask a direct question or ask for clarification, this if you have any interest to do so

Please tell me that post was being ironic as I can see no reason to post what you did other than to poke fun at Buzz. What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Why would you wan to poke fun at poor ole Buzz?Your meaning is not clear.

No, you infered I was implying that you have written word salads, for some reason. I did not.You could be making a general point that you construct sentences better than your creo brethren but why would you think I would be intersted in that?

I think Dawn is making a reference to a character I've never heard of ("Joey") on a show I've never seen ("Fullhouse", by which I think he means, "Full House", and I've never seen that either). He referred to Joey and the show and the phrase "You say this guy's name was Bill?" a couple days ago in Message 11 in the Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] | thread. Dawn is making the point that some people have inadequate comprehension skills and so are unable to identify the key points, in this case, Dr Adequate in attempting to understand Buzsaw.What I'd like to see is Dawn Bertot interpreting Buzsaw for us.--Percy

Thanks to Percy, I now know what the 'Joey' comment was about.But, did it ever ocure to you that attempting to make a point that hinges on a comment from another post in another thread that you have no reason to beleive I've read in a post addressed to me about clarity of communication (say it all in one breath), was a bloody stupid thing to do?Evidently not.

***head asplodes****

Joey was presented with a very complicated scenario, which began with a guy named Bill was on a train traveling at a speed of 120 miles per, etc, etc, etc. After much complicated explanation and a complicated scenario, which Joey did not understand, his response was, "you say this guys name was Bill". I thought that was cute and funnyIt sounds like something i might sayI was not foking pun at my friend Buz, I was simply agreeing with DA that I did not understand his statement. Id odes not mean that Buzz's statement does not make sense, only that i did not understand the verbageThats all, no offense intended

Yes I know sorry, sue me

I would be more than happy to do this if you are serious and would like to present a statement or comment made by BuzzIs your intimation that Buzz is incomprehensible?Dawn Bertot

Hi Percy.I'm trying to correlate the first paragraph of your message. Would you please explain it to me so as to correlate the sentences in it?

The situation that I think we evolutionists find most puzzling is when a creationist makes an argument that none of us can make sense of and that reads to us like nonsense, but from creationists it receives attaboys (e.g., "Keep up the good fight!") or "like" votes or complaints in other threads about treating the creationist unfairly. When this happens we'd really like to see some evidence that these other creationists really understood what that creationist said, because we really *are* convinced that creationist was talking nonsense.Buz just offered up another example in Message 70: Correlate? CORRELATE???My guess is that Buzsaw didn't understand something about my first paragraph, and he's asking me to clarify, but he's not specific, and after reading that paragraph over several times I'm unable to identify a place where I was unclear or ambiguous. I might have been wrong in my conclusions, but I think I was very clear.In the Opening Post of this thread Taz asks if anyone else is having as much trouble understanding what some creationists are saying as he does, and I responded by claiming that these creationists are as unintelligible to each other as they are to us. The evidence we've seen so far in this thread would seem to support this. No creationist has offered to explain Robert Byers' word salad that I posted in Message 49, and now you say you don't understand Buzsaw, either.We evolutionists are often told we're just too dumb or too biased or too immersed in our world view to understand what you or IamJoseph or Buzsaw or Robert Byers or John 10:10 or Marc9000 (etc., etc. and so forth) are saying, but the evidence of this thread so far indicates that you creationists have just as much trouble understanding each other as we do.--Percy

Oftentimes Buz is incomprehensible, and you just indicated in Message 67 that you do not understand him either ("I did not understand his statement."). Since we all agree his statement isn't open to ready interpretation there's no point in asking you to interpret it.What would be interesting would be if a creationist said, "Why are you evolutionists jumping all over Buz? What he said was perfectly comprehensible." This is the creationist we would like to interpret Buz for us, mainly because we believe he's just blowing smoke and has as little a clue of what Buz is trying to say as we do.I should add that aside from Buz's weak grasp of terminology when he's talking about science, his command of English is excellent, and he is able to make perfectly understandable but completely nonsensical statements in perfect English. This is why some people have commented that they'd prefer to debate Buz because whatever he says, at least his grammar (if not his spelling, "imperical" being his most persistent example) produces easily recognizable English sentences.--Percy

It seems to me you are dramatizing a realatively simple problem. If you have a problem with something Mr Byers said or something Buzzford said, ask then to simplify, not me.If however it is your point presently, that I cant understand itI will take a look at message 49, then if I dont understand it I will axe Mr byers to simplify, because then we might be able to conversate. Heck it might even be his burfday, and hell be Stayzin in a specific place, chillin up in that mug, Word.As in RAZD's post I am going to need much claificationa and specification Fair enough Ill take a look. Usually however this comes down to how someone was taught or trained. It becomes a simple communication problem. not that they are untenableDawn Bertot

Do you think it would help to ask (axe)him to clarify and simplifiy. It should become very clear then if what he is saying is valid from any perspectiveDawn Bertot

We've been doing that for about eight years now. It seldom helps.