Why do creationist posters quote so?

I think both "quote mining" and "fact mining" (to be discussed below) can both be honest attempts at arguing a point, by a creationist under the influence of "Morton's Demon". That is, they hear what they want to here, and are oblivious to what conflicts with what they want to hear.I once again bring up Terry, from "Terry's Talk Origins".While I don't remember Terry being a "quote miner", he does have a real talent at "fact mining". That is, the digging up of little facts (sometimes remarkably obscure) that he thinks will be a step toward the downfall of "old earthism". In looking at his tidbid, he is astonishingly oblivious to context.As a prime example, I bring you Terry's "Rocks don't have dates on them!" topic.There he takes the article "Ironstone pods in the Archean Barberton greenstone Belt, South Africa: Earths oldest seafloor hydrothermal vents reinterpreted as Quaternary subareal springs", and interpretes it as a great failing of "old earthism", despite the fact that the enclosing rocks are still clearly defined as 3.2 Ga greenstones.Moose

quote:

---

Evos are remiss often in supporting statements and, imo, would do well for the advancement of factual truth to back up some of their own statements with documentation, rather than expecting us all to accept some specific statements at face value, as if they are the authority they consider themselves to be.

---

I'm not sure if this is on-topic, but...I must agree, that this is too often the case. I think that is one of Bill Birkeland's strengths - His backing his statements with links to references.I really don't think this is the place to revive the "star" debates.Moose