Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

I wouldn't expect to find myself defending IamJoseph, but I understand his arguments. I think I have spent far too much time reading them.Regarding the Big Bang, his basic point is some old-fashioned sounding philosophical argument that all events require at least two entities. An event is an interaction, A acting upon B. He misunderstands the term 'singularlity', and becomes excited because this 'single' thing could not cause an event by itself. Thus God.IAmJoseph understands his arguments, that's not the problem. The problem is his bizarre, idiosyncratic use of English (which I think may just be a failed attempt to sound intelligent, but might be because he's not a native speaker, it's hard to tell); and the fact that he either refuses or is incapable of understanding what most other people write. His ideas, despite being clearly wrong, are deeply cemented and will continue to be repeated ad nauseum regardless of what anyone else says to him.

Doesn't make it true We often get applicants for jobs where I work who pretend to be native speakers, because they can converse fine in English and thus believe (wrongly) that they can get away with it.

Somewhere that needs people who can write (and understand) English pretty flawlessly. A lot of native speakers can't do that, and only a tiny proportion of non-native speakers can. The idea of advertising for native-speakers only is that it will deter those whose English is good but not good enough for the job, and inspire any whose English is good enough to demonstrate the fact.It doesn't work, of course, but that's the idea.