Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

I find this question difficult to answer as I can't understand most of what they are saying. It does often feel like they only have a weak grasp of what they are trying to say - but I can't be certain.And, after reading some of Dawn's comments, it is clear to me that Dawn continues to refuse to believe that his prose is frequently nonsensical.
Instead he says: "My first guess is that you actually do understand you simply have no response." when his first guess should have been: "My English is faulty."
Then he says: "I would suggest you put forward arguments instead of hiding behind false pretense[sic]." rather than accepting that his English is abysmal.
I have asked him many times why his English is so bad, but he either ignores the question or tells me to stop threatening him.But I don't think that being a creationist causes the problem.
I think there is something else that causes their posts to be nonsense.
What I find a little sad is that English is often their native tongue.

I agree that some of Dawn's nonsense is intentional - but not all of it.
But I don't understand the point of pretending to write gibberish.
You don't win the debate if everyone ends up staring at you as if you are mad.Whereas I don't think that the likes of IamJ and CD7 are intentionally 'muddying the water'.
I don't read any deceit or disingenuousness in their posts.

IamJ has repeatedly stated that English is his main/only language.

I think DB was referring to "we" as in "evolutions and creationists" not we as in "creationists".
Granted, that does add weight to Percy's claim that non-creationists on this board have trouble understanding creationists like DB and visa versa.
(I still contend that the lack of ability in English shown by the likes of DB et al is not caused by their creationism or limited solely to creationists.)Edited by Panda, : tweakEdited by Panda, : typo

It would have been quicker for you to have replied with "I don't know." as you clearly don't. *nods*Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

...or it could be Larni's signature.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

.Edited by Panda, : .

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.

I was considering having it as my signature.

@3:35 - he says the 'C' word!!

As far as I can tell, he spends 23 minutes asking questions and giving no answers and in the last 7 minutes he reads out an article written by George Wald in 1954 and then says that George Wald retracted it. Not sure why. (I think it was a twisted Argument From Authority, where the fact that he retracts his original statement lends weight to his final statement. *shrug*)
He then says that the origin of life requires an external force (e.g. electricity) and that this means that there must be a god. The film is edited ... but they decided to keep that bit in.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.