I have what appears to be a Chevy S-1500 Silverado in my driveway.
Or so I thought!
Let's suppose the left door mirror is broken off, for whatever reason. Some pedant comes barreling out of the woods, with the blueprints of the S-1500 in hand, and insists that it is, in fact, not a Chevy S-1500.
You see, according the blueprints, they have a mirror on the left door. Mine doesn't, so therefore, it's not a Chevy S-1500.
It doesn't matter that all the rest of the evidence - the preponderance of evidence - aligns and confirms that it is.
Nope, this guy has proven that it's not, based on a minute point of inconsistency. Clearly, he's disproven that notion as completely bunk, and we can now agree that his assertion - that it's an Interdimensional Space Ostrich - is now the only viable solution left.
Sounds ridiculous? We get this all the time when it comes to topics, such as evolution. It doesn't matter that the overwhelming majority of all empirical evidence aligns with the concept, and corroborates it, it's frequently dismissed, out of hand, due to a minor inconsistency in the data. More often, it's dismissed because of an alleged error that only exists in the mind of the "disbeliever".
Last week, on the Atheist Experience, a Christian called up saying that "Evolution is impossible". Why does he think this? Because he thinks that abiogenesis is too unlikely to have happened.
Nevermind that evolution is not contingent on abiogenesis, or that he had no basis for arguing that it was unlikely in the first place (he merely threw out numbers with nothing to show how he got the numbers). The whole of evolutionary theory, and all the observed, peer-reviewed empirical evidence contained therein, is all swept aside for asinine reasons.
Oy. Science literacy is hard.