Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

Thanks, fellas!

I did read it buz. That's kinda why I asked what it means. Perhaps you could explain?

Then look up the words; think objectively; specify what it is that you need help on.

Larni, you know the rules. Whether it be in your signature or in your message you need to identify the writer of whomever you quote. You've juxtaposed two different authors into one statement, designating neither to the writer/s.

Do you really want your name appended to the sig? One made with the express purpose of lampooning posts that are best described as 'bollocuss drivilus maximuss'?I made no attribution because I feared I would be raked over the coals for deliberately and continually taking the piss of posters who rarely make a lick of sense.I shall await an admin to guide me on this point.Abe: I see admin has cleared this issue up: no attribution is needed. Edited by Larni, : Abe

So...Buz thought it appropriate to down-vote a post where you expressed gratitude to the people that gave formatting advice.I think he is only seeing what he expects to see.

Ok....What does "segmentize" mean, Buz? (hint: it's not what YOU think it means) What DOES this mean? I don't want you to dance around it, I just want a straight answer.

That will teach me!

Signatures do receive a modest bit of attention from moderators, but signatures are not part of the discussion, plus they appear after a left-justified gray separator line that is the hallmark of a signature here and so is a dead giveaway that the text that follows is part of the signature. I don't see how providing attribution would help indicate the text is part of a signature if someone has somehow missed the separator line.The Member Control Panel now has a setting to turn off display of signatures, so anyone who would prefer not to see them can turn them off.

I say if Buzz wants credit for his part of your signature then let him have it. (personally I wouldn't admit to saying something like that, or claim I was drunk at the time.) Too funny!! You should warn people to "SWALLOW BEFORE READING FURTHER" when posting stuff like that. It made me think of a Transformer...one that changes from a table saw into a christian gladiator. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

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.

I don't believe that this is the case: please substantiate your assertion.

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?

Generally I find two types of posts difficult to understand. The ones written in that confusing English that people here have mentioned, e.g.
"I am disturbed not by evolutions loaded impositions on evidential matters, subordinate and superordinate, by rather the assumptions it makes on fundamental beginnings, before the beginning was begun".However much more difficult to deal with are the ones that combine this English with a rejection of obvious facts, e.g.
"In the interest of ontological honesty, let us be quite clear, you cannot "drink" water."I first saw this in a statement I saw on here a long time ago, I forget who said it, where the poster said:
"You cannot "stand" on the surface of the Earth". I have absolutely no idea what people who say this stuff mean. In some posts here most of the time spent on composition is actually on understanding what was said to me.

While citing IamJoseph here is about as sporting as shooting a large fish in a small barrel, I thought that this magnificent contribution should not go unrecognized.