Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

Seriously, read what you just wrote. Now read it out loud. Does that sound even remotely right to you? Is there some reason why you didn't just write that as, "Most people here disagree with me on this/these topics."? I'm not trying to be mean, but if one of my 3rd graders wrote something like this I would make them re-write it for clarity. Are you trying to call someone a mallethead or are the malletheads on opposite sides of some lost culinary coinage?Lurker

Hello Dawn Bertot, This is incorrect. It would all depend on what they are saying. I cant speak for everyone on this but I know that I do not disagree with something someone says just because they are a theist of a creationist. I disagree with things that IMJ and yourself say for totally different reasons. This forum is not a simple as 2 sides. I would not put all of the Creationists on the same side. From what I can understand, IMJ supports Evolution and the Big Bang Theory because he believes that the Book of Genesis outlines these theories. This is not a common position amongst creationists.If you do not disagree with what Buzz, ICANT, IMJ and Jaywill (and others) say, does that mean that there is some sort of consensus amongst that group?How is it possible to not disagree with some of what those individuals say when they say opposing things?For example, check out this thread... Message 1It is a thread of over 300 posts written by discussing the reading of Genesis chapter 1, verse 1. When have you guys ever all agreed?

I think I'm beginning to see a pattern. having taken quite a few philosophy classes when I was in college, particularly modern (or post modern) philosophy, I've seen some people try to immitate the post-modern writing style. From what I've been able to gather, these individuals can't tell the difference between genuine philosophical works and really bad English (I'm not so sure there is that much of a difference). So, they just end up writing sentences that are less than stellar thiking they've created post-modern-like style sentences when in fact they're just really bad English.

Robert Byers (a native speaker of English? French, maybe?) just posted a couple messages in the Meyer's Hopeless Monster thread. Since they're not long I include them here in their entirety: I do think I understand what Robert is saying, but he's making some relatively simple points. The problem is that this writing style becomes unintelligible as soon as the subject matter moves beyond the simple, at which point it becomes doubtful whether anyone, including the author, understands what was said.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix message link.

I've been struggling to remember (and I still can't) but I think Ben Goldacre (off of Weird Science, off of the Grauniad) high lighted how (this is where my memory fails) that a certain group of writers (in philosophical circles, I think) would use such bodged together words that they had no real meaning.An example of this I do recall was something like "the sum totality of the universal singularity conforms with the thought shape of the individual's perceptual range" (paraphrased).If it was Goldacre, his point was clearly that some people do vanish up their own arse trying to sound wiser tha they are.I know I used to do it in exams: when I couldn't quite put down onto paper what I meant I made up something in the hope my professor would think I was being deep.And what do you know, it only ever worked in my Psychodynamic paper. In the real psychology classes it did not fly.And as we all know, psychodynamism is talking bollocks.

Nothing I have ever written or posted sounds as silly as the above comment.If one wishes clarification on any statement, they simply need to ask for clarification in the form of a specific questionMagically, that always seem to work, unless one wishes to continually misrepresent thier oppositionIf I were to wonder what the above comment you quoted meant I would ask the poster for clarification and simplification. If his statement at some point did not confrom to any thing reasonable, it would be easily recognizable very quicklyIf you think I have made comments that I cannot demonstrate or defend, then feel free to supply it.If I am not mistaken, I remember Dewise1 promising me the samething and warning me my days were numbered. He has been as silent as the tomb concerning his assertion and complaintDawn Bertot

When it comes to the post-modern style, there is no difference, it's all just bad english.

Well, im not sure that would work. It would feel like we were being fed to the loins while the Romans look on with glee as we battle it out.I think a "discussion" would be better than a Great debate but if the Great debate is the only avenue then it will have to do.Maybe it can be a reasonable debate in the form of explaining our positions and going thru each point till we can reach an agreement or a stalemate on each point.

I had issued no such warning. Quote me directly and point us to the specific message where you got that quote from.We had gone over your false claims of having a model and had to instruct you as to what a model is and how it's used. We also had to teach you what logic is and how it's used. For your part, you demonstrated conclusively that you didn't have a clue. Rather, you disappeared from the forum for an extended period of time.Rather than waste my time with your interminable bullshit, I've been working on much more important and productive things.When are you ever going to present your reasons for considering verbal debate superior to written debate? We already know what your reasons are, that in a verbal format you can baffle the audience and your opponent with your bullshit with far greater ease than you can in a written format.

Ill be happy to do that give me a couple of days to look it up. Personally I think on those last few excahnges between us, I think you had been elbow bending, but I could be mistakenAt any rate I will provide your claim to go through my posts and demonstrate nonsensical statements and that my days were numberedDawn Bertot

Message 83 Dewise1 writes Message 90 he writes What happened did you forget about your challenge and taskCome on you german bulldog, start tearingbe honest you were drunk werent you? If you admit this I will forvive you and absolve you of your empty challengeBTW, you should know that Scottish, Irish and German dont even come close to Italiano bloodBut thats neither here nor there. Bada boom bada bing, Whata madda you, Uh?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Provided Links to msg

One from Buzsaw: It just doesn't come across as an attempt to communicate with anyone else.

Many people have complained from time to time how certain people throughout history have hidden their nonsense in verbose. The most recent that comes to my mind is a book called Fashionably Nonsense by Sokol. It describes in great detail how certain philosophers throughout history have written pretty much nonsense but were praise by the philosophical community for their supposed briliance.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have promised you nothing and made no reference to you.What you infer from my post is your own business, not mine.

One from Buzsaw: DA writes: "You say this guys name was Bill"?, Joey 'Fullhouse'--------------------------------------------------------------------------------