Why do creationist posters quote so?

As with everything else they offer in support of their position, the quotes offered by creationists are notoriously selective and misleading. If (as in the case of the Milton quotes WILLOWTREE offered) the quoted author is anti-evolution, then his word is taken as absolute, objective truth. The assumption is always that the author's sole intent is to destroy the insidious materialist/naturalist/whateverist conspiracy, and his motives are assumed to be pure. Often (as in the case of the countless quotes DNAunion offered) the authors are more or less conventional scientific researchers, but their words can be misread to support claims with which the authors themselves would almost certainly disagree. In this case, the assumption is that the author must have had a rare epiphany in which the truth appeared to him despite his brainwashing by the etc.ist conspiracy.The most frustrating aspect to this creationist quote mining is its invulnerability to correction. When people questioned Milton's credentials or his grasp of the concepts he was discussing, WILLOWTREE took the criticism as a sign of Milton's maverick insight. When evidence was offered to counter Milton's claims, WILLOWTREE answered that the evidence could only refute him if it were filtered through an evolutionist perspective. Concerning the quotes from evolutionists, creationists still stand their ground even though evolutionists put the original quotes into their proper context: the assumption is that the same scientists can be regarded as reliable if their words support the creationist's claims, but unreliable when they don't.The cornerstone of creationism is the belief that any support for evolutionary theory is motivated by atheism, the urge to perpetuate the vast cover up, or both. Attempts to counter creationist claims can come from believers or atheists, researchers or theorists, but their opposition to creationism is always dismissed as atheistic folly. Thus, any attempt at rational discourse ends up becoming an emotionally charged battle about irrelevant metaphysics instead of an objective debate about the significance of empirical evidential inquiry.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This type of assertion (you made it in the "Abiogenesis" thread) is typical of creationists. You're not the first guy to come down the pike singing the praises of DNA's 'information'-processing prowess, amigo. Very few of DNA's fanatical cheering section seem content to marvel at the near-miraculous properties of this wonder of biochemistry. We have every reason to believe the reason you're still beating the dead horse of 'INFORMATION' is that you want to ascribe magic properties to DNA that (all together now) can't conceivably be accounted for by Darwinian evolution.I think every quote you've offered concerning 'information in DNA' derives from sources that would not agree that DNA has properties that call into question the standard evolutionary explanation for the complexity of life on Earth. Since your latest post quotes Richard Dawkins asserting that DNA contains information, I feel justified in calling your methods absolutely disingenuous. If, of course, I am guilty of misrepresenting your position concerning Darwinism, by all means set me straight. If you are, in fact, merely appreciating the wonders of Nature and have no anti-Darwinist agenda, I apologize and I stand corrected. But I recognize the gambit and I'm sure I'm not alone.I await your response.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 12-27-2003]

DNAunion claims:

quote:

---

I made it perfectly clear that I was not making statements about HOW the information in DNA got there, just that it WAS there.

---

And the only thing of which I accused you was quoting the words of people who would probably disagree with the conclusions you are using their words to support. You think Dawkins and Loewenstein are good enough to quote when they use the word 'information.' I'm sure you'll have no reason to quote either when he talks about the nature and origin of this 'information.' I recall in The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins took great pains to outline a plausible scenario whereby genetic 'information' evolved from crude replicatory systems through the usual mutation-selection process. Like I said, you quote the author as an authority when it fits your aims and ignore his words when it doesn't.Since you quoted and answered every word of my last post except the part where I accused you of having an anti-Darwinist agenda, it's clear you don't want to come clean. I gather that you think undirected Darwinian evolution is incapable of producing the 'information' processing system that DNA represents for you. If you are using Dawkins's words to lend credence to such an assertion, then you are guilty as charged.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 12-28-2003]

And by any chance would you agree with Dawkins and Loewenstein that all this wonderful 'information' evolved through RM&NS? Or how did it, uh, 'get there'?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

You will find that DNAUnion deliberately avoids stating his own stances, so that he can criticize other people for their stances without having to have scrutiny come to his own

---

/*MrHambre*/ Grow up, Rei.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall