I may be off on your perception and accuracy of your impression; here are some (non-gospel) thoughts:
Lately I've lurked webs containing 'Big Daddy?', Creationwise, Primordial Soup comics, etc. (You can google these). These seem to be (comic) 'posters', primarily. Their range of quoting and/or slandering is perhaps the same level as Evo's, methinks.
I.e., I'm looking at one poster that shows a janitor sweeping under a rug called "ANOMALIES" (Primordial Soup). Another poster shows a confused looking geek stating, "I BELIEVE there was a big bang", "I BELIEVE we came from apes" ...etc., etc.
As for EvC 'posts' (here) by creationists not cohering to all points and/or not pointing to many links ... this seems a true and valid impression. Some ideas as to why it is so:
Many YECs focus more on the Bible and would gleefully link you therein (i.e., myself as a YEC); I hate being bogged down in debates. The vanity and vexation is great. Yet there have been a very few high strung YEC-geeks here that might have given a lot of seemingly pertinent point by point discourses with references (i.e., Peter Borg might have). I myself (a YEC) used to give a few links but no one read them.
But a real problem with YECs (myself included) is that their YEC hypotheses (like those of mega-TOEist's) can never really reach the theory level via traditional scientific method. This is not to say that micro-evolutionism has ever failed as a valid theory.
Respectfully Jack, Evo's are guilty of the same thing, relying on one another's outside authority, half-baked conclusions, half-truths, opinions of stupid scientists, and supposedly brilliant geeks
... who all somehow became foolish empiricists of elusive quantum matter, optics, and space-time continuums, deep things which defy materialistic pressumptions.
In other words my study of our deep origins must account for these deep things. A man's conclusions must remain speculative (i.e., hypothetical at best) by either camp (YEC or Evo). Otherwise that man is a liar, empirically speaking.
Now, I admit: dogmatically speculating (lying from an empirical perspective) at times to support my faith-biases. The YEC strawman, Jack, is very real. A strawman (if there really be such a thing) seems essentially to be a dogmatic hypothesis-theory-conclusion that seeks data to support it.
Both camps at present have their strawman stablished: The Evo with his Mega-Evo scheme, the YEC with his Mega-Christian scheme. Both purport their strawman as fact. Both are liars (you and I) when we denote our strawman empirically real.
Yet, when I, a YEC, give any homage to my deity (e.g., on my face in prayer, praising, singing, meditating, complaining, crying, dying, regenerating in the Christ, etc.), I am blatantly lying against all naturalistic and empirical reality. Thus it is extremely vexing for me, a YEC, to answer every trite point of the empiricist, knowing full well it damages my time spent in 'holiness'.
Hope this gives you some idea of one YEC's dilemma, Jack (and others).
™ Version 4.2
