I for one, would love to know how making an observation based upon data is "arrogant". I keep seeing assertions of this sort from supernaturalists, to the effect that critique of their public proclamations, no matter now absurd, laden with paradox or demonstrably wrong according to observational data, is purportedly "arrogant", whilst insisting in the next breath, that their demands that we should accept their assertions in the same uncritical manner that they do, somehow manages to escape the same charge.

But I'm used to supernaturalist double standards, so it no longer surprises me to see this rear its ugly head. It disappoints me to see such double standards repeatedly reappearing, telling me that supernaturalists seem either unwilling or incapable of learning the elementary concepts applicable, but experience has taught me that the cliché "familiarity breeds contempt" is wholly apposite here.

One of the major annoyances I encounter in various discoursive arenas such as this, is the manner in which, all too often, supernaturalists flagrantly abuse even the most elementary rules of discourse. The abundance of instances thereof, that I have observed elsewhere, cannot simply be attributed to mere ignorance, for if this were the case, being reminded of the proper application of those rules would see an immediate change in discoursive behaviour on the part of the supernaturalists in question. Instead, not only do the violations continue, but in some cases are pursued with renewed and even more duplicitous vigour.

The foundational rules governing the treatment of assertions, are frequently the rules most flagrantly violated, and said egregious discoursive conduct has, in other venues, all too often continued unabated, even after diligent effort has been expended explaining those foundational rules and their application. Though at least in the case of pedlars of "presuppositional apologetics", you know where you stand from the very start, as these people announce that they're going to regard themselves and their assertions as exempt from those rules of discourse, and as a corollary, it's a waste of time bothering to engage them directly, even if dismantling their canards possesses pedagogical value. Once again, many of us who recognise the value of proper, rigorous rules of discourse, find ourselves addressing the watching audience instead of the pedlar of apologetics, because said pedlar of apologetics hubristically regards himself and his favourite mythology, as being entitled to a raft of discoursive privileges not extended to, say, physics, chemistry or biology.

More sinister, on the other hand, are the apologists who pretend they are playing by the rules, but who, in reality, are adopting the presuppositionalist stance with regard to their fantasies. Creationists frequently fall into this camp, and the duplicity endemic to creationism, especially the professional, corporate version extant in the USA, is now voluminously documented. Another sinister group I've encountered are the neo-Thomists, the breed of Aquinas fanboys exemplified by Edward Feser, who combine knowing and wilful discoursive abuse, with sneering condescension and a taste for self-regard that borders on the Trumpian. This particular clique of apologists can usually be seen doing the rounds whenever LGBT rights or abortion are discussed, as this tends to be their favourite venue for mischief, though some of them will also dip their toes in the same waters as creationists if they become bored with misogyny and homophobia.

Then there are the Muslim creationist wannabees, who think they'll secure an easy living for themselves if they jump on the Harun Yahya bandwagon, though criminal proceedings in Turkey appear to be having an impact on that particular collection of specimens. However, I still see a few of these active, and I can tell you right now, that they get very angry indeed, when you remind them of the fishing lures hilarity arising from that expensively produced piece of tat known as Atlas of Creation. Not only does money appear to be unable to buy taste in many cases (and if you check out some of Adnan Oktar's more sleazy activities, you'll find this applies to him in spades), but money appears to be insufficient to fund a proper education, in the case of this sector of the mythology fanboy universe. All too often, the Harun Yahya brigade exhibit even worse levels of functional illiteracy than the most methamphetamine-addled slave-state redneck, which actually constitutes a perverse sort of achievement, especially when you realise that this is accomplished without the use of mind-altering pharmaceuticals.

One cannot even offer in mitigation, the fact that there are major structural differences between Indo-European and Semitic/Turkic languages, as there are plenty of people from the requisite backgrounds who master both their native tongue and English with an enviable level of finesse. But, almost universally, the observable data extant thus far, points to a predilection for apologetics being associated with numerous malign traits, right across the vast span of cultural, geographical and ethnic diversity. At one part of the spectrum, we have the amateur fanboys, some of whom exhibit language use consonant with medically diagnosable cognitive impairment, and at the alternate end, we have the professional practitioners, in whom indolence and low mental functioning are replaced with the underhand skulduggery of the truly mercenary reprobate. Where language issues arise, this trend tends to be magnified, but is quantifiable even in native English speakers.

But of course, any pretence that apologetics is even remotely close to a proper academic discipline, is a notion that will be laughed at by anyone who has spent a decent amount of time paying attention in, say, mathematics and physics classes, where the levels of rigour extant would scare the shit out of the Hovinds and Osteens of this world. Frankly, apologetics is nothing more than the grand pretence, that ex recto fabrication and fantasy count for more than, say, General Relativity or Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, and it's about time this rampant pretence was exposed for the sham that it is. If all you have to offer is apologetics, then you might as well admit from the start that you base your entire view of the world upon made up shit, because I know for a fact that if mythology fanboys had genuine evidence for their assertions, of the sort that physicists can bring to the table, or the sort of properly rigorous proof seen in pure mathematics, they would abandon apologetics faster than you could say "William Lane Craig", and he'd be trying to be seen to be the first in the queue, in the hope that no one remembered his embarrassing apologetic past.

Quite simply, apologetics is the go-to location for those not competent to be proper scientists or mathematicians, or for those whose venality makes them seek effortlessly lucrative careers. It's the home of the charlatan, the snake oil salesman, the practitioner of shell games with which to defraud the gullible, and the last thing that the pedlar thereof wants, is for any of this to be exposed. Hence the entirely synthetic cries of "arrogance", the tone policing, the deliberate false eqivalences and bad analogies, and all the other subterfuges with which they have bedazzled the easily led, in the hope that there are still sufficient people with non-functioning bullshit filters to keep the sham alive, and in some cases, to finance the McMansion, the collection of Bentleys and Lamborghinis, and the private jet.

@shiningone

I had the same reaction, however I took a step back and re-read. I do not think that their intention was to use alot of big words simply to seem smart.

They are smart. To be able to construct sentences, that contain those wordos and still be coherent, is not easily achieved unless you are, indeed, smart.

Often times when someone uses language in a way that is unusual or at an intellectually higher standard, we assume things about it, without proper evidence.