That some concepts cannot be reduced to a 30 second Facebook soundbite, while simultaneously being represented both honestly and rigorously , is of course one of those ideas mythology fanboys routinely fail to understand.
Indeed, on the old version of this forum, I attempted to provide an accessible explanation of the concept of ‘tensor’, and even though I exerted much effort on that exercise, it still left several readers wondering what they had just read.
Now if I, with an actual understanding of that concept, and a willingness to exert diligent effort to explain the concept properly and in an accessible manner, encountered this problem, what makes mythology fanboys think that they can demand to be spoon fed 30 second soundbites packaging, say, 80 years’ worth of prebiotic chemistry research?
Of course, no one who understands what the word “concise” genuinely means, thinks brevity should be pursued at the expense of rigour or pedagogical success. It’s not surprising to see mythology fanboys think otherwise, because the whole purpose of apologetics is to obfuscate and twist, in order to sell absurd assertions as purportedly constituting fact to the gullible and uneducated.
Pedlars of apologetics, as a corollary, recoil from honest pursuit of rigour, and erect whiny excuses when the rest of us exert said diligent effort.
I’m also familiar with the “stonewall” brigade (Facebook is polluted with this dross to a fulminating extent), the ones who stubbornly double down on manifest (and frequently infantile) lies even after patient effort has been exerted to correct said lies. Creationists deploy this “ferrous cranium” tactic, in the mistaken belief that they “win” the argument by mindlessly driving the opposition to frustrated exhaustion, and I refer to this ilk as “Chatty Cathy bots”, because at bottom that’s a succinct encapsulation of their conduct.
The extension thereof taking, of course, the form of the Gish Gallop, named after professional liar for doctrine Duane Gish. Whose duplicitous modus operandi consisted of unleashing scatter-gun assertions in rapid succession,knowing full well that answering them all properly would require a week or so of intensive classes in the relevant material. Another mendacious means by which creationists claim to “win” debates constrained by time.
And of course, there’s the egregious attempts to posture as being in a position to redefine entire swathes of scientific concepts, for the utterly reprehensible purpose of erecting the weakest possible strawman caricatures of said concepts, in order to avoid addressing the relevant inconvenient reality.
I’ve seen this, and much more, in 14 years of dealing with mythology fanboy duplicity and stupidity, and do not anticipate any positive change in conduct from said demographic occurring even in the next millennium, let alone within my lifetime. Rampant and egregious dishonesty is so endemic to apologetics, that only the extirpation thereof will remedy this.