Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

Buz writes:The above ontological example...

Buz writes:...models the zero premise to BB theory.

Buz writes:It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from...

Buz writes:...the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order...

Buz writes:more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.

What Buz menat to writes:The previously mentioned example that tries to explain the way things are is the standard model of Big Bang theory. However, it is assuming the relative uniformity of (something, again some forgotten words). The standard Big Bang model, even if this were the case, is actually evidence of god, not an argument against him.

Dawn Bertot writes: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 perspective

Percy writes:Buz just offered up another example in Message 70:Buzsaw in Message 70 writes:
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?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.

Some of the longest threads in EvC Forum history began this way.

To you and Larni, I find it hard to believe after such a period of time you still cannot understnad his points

Buz produces high quality writing..

The primary problem in this case is not meaningless word salads (though he has a knack for that, too).

Dr Jones writes:Buz frequently suffers from word-of-the-day-itis. He'll discover a new word and use it, usually incorrectly, where ever he can. For example; his use of correlate in this thread.

Questioning how one sentence co-relates to another in the same paragraph is an incorrect application of the word?

Buz frequently suffers from word-of-the-day-itis. He'll discover a new word and use it, usually incorrectly, where ever he can. For example; his use of correlate in this thread.

Decipher to me how all of the sentences co-relate (correlate) to one another in the first paragraph of Percy's Message 64.

Questioning how one sentence co-relates to another in the same paragraph is an incorrect application of the word? Please explain.

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?

Quick; what message does he refer to regarding Dr Adequate attempting to understand Buzsaw?

Huntard writes:Let's give it a try shall we?Buz writes:
The above ontological example...Refers to a previously given example that tries to explain the way things are.Buz writes:
...models the zero premise to BB theory.The example Buz refers to is a model including and proceeding from the singularity of the Big Bang.Buz writes:
It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from...The way this model tries to explain the way things are is by using (assuming) the relative uniformity (of something), I think he forgot some words here. That made the singularity happen.Buz writes:
...the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order...This is basically Buz's understanding of the standard Big Bang model that he butchered. So, in it's place we will simply put "Big Bang model".Buz writes:
more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.Buz says it is more evidence for god than it is for "not god" basically.
Which leaves us with this:What Buz menat to writes:
The previously mentioned example that tries to explain the way things are is the standard model of Big Bang theory. However, it is assuming the relative uniformity of (something, again some forgotten words). The standard Big Bang model, even if this were the case, is actually evidence of god, not an argument against him.Is this kinda correct, Buz?

ontology sub-microscopic chaos