I predicted that the creationist clickbait in the title of that stupid article about all animals originating at the same time would snag a few doofuses. I was right. Look who is tweeting about it: Eric Erickson and Ted Cruz.
Liberal atheists respond with angry screams in three…two…one…. https://t.co/K7Y3vKtujK
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 7, 2018
Unfortunately, that means the nonsense will be spread even further.
Is it even worth the effort of tweeting a link to your blog post?
That’s what you get when you create legal protections for being demonstrably wrong. The cancer spreads and science and civilization dies a little more.
Blobfish aren’t all that big.
In theory, this should be easy to disabuse people of. The TechTimes article claims that the paper says 90% of animals appeared at the same time, but the paper clearly says that 90% of extant species evolved over a period spanning the last 100,000 to 200,000 years. Are people like Cruz and Erickson just too stupid to understand the difference?
No, they just care about different things than truth.
A Christian just cares to have their beliefs validated.
Cruz cares about being seen as pious.
Erickson cares about clickbaity headline.
Why liberal atheists? There are quite a few theist scientists out there.
rietpluim, but since (at least in that sort of ‘mind’) they are almost certainly liberals too, they are therefore virtually indistinguishable.
The infamous creationist Peter Borger simply dismissed them as “not real Christians” so virtually atheist as well.
F.O. @5
I’m just saying, I don’t see how they’d be able to avoid admitting they were wrong if someone showed them what the paper actually said. One of the authors of the paper could probably send a tweet to Cruz explaining that TechTimes misunderstood the paper, and Cruz still probably wouldn’t admit he was wrong. That level of denial is equal parts annoying and perplexing to me.
It is trivially obvious that most extant species appeared relatively recently in geological time. More ancient species are mostly extinct. That’s the whole point. I mean, duhh.
In no particular order (and this is probably not a complete list!):
● Lying.
● Lawyering — that is, insisting the words don’t mean what they seem to mean. (A variant might be the infamous .)
● Refusing to look / read. (This is an one old, e.g, the people who refused to look through a telescope to see what Galileo was talking about.)
● Diversions (often false) / false accusations / , e.g., the current bleating of †
● Ignoring the demonstration of what was actually said.
And so on. There seems to be a presumption of intellectual honesty, at the least, in the question “how could they…?” Past experience strongly, very strongly, suggests that presumption is as wonky as the numerous presuppositions the cretinists make.
† An infamous example of a false diversion, albeit not by a cretinist, was when some woo-woo quack was pinned down by James Randi on a televised show. The scam artist tried to wiggle out of being shown to be a fraud by asking (paraphrasing)