BK is right, evolutionists do tend to use-and-abuse the "quote mine" card. One indication a quote is not a quote mine is if a lengthy paragraph is quoted in context. I would recommend though, BK, also including their excuses for what they say. A lot of these quotes can be used, but it's useful to show their explanation.
For example Gould might say something like this; " there are no transitionals......here is my explanation"
It is useful to show his explanation, because modern science would reject his explanation. It seems very few people, very few evolutionists, accept punctuated equilibrium, meaning the things Gould admitted to, are still problems for evolution.
Can I give a quick example Blitzking;
Imagine that I have an explanation for the Datylov incident. (mysterious death of nine people on a mountain in Russia), BUT, imagine I am the type of person that has always stuck to the position that the whole thing is highly explainable, there is no mystery, and I would never admit to the possibility of any type of mystery even if I had a gun to my head. (like Gould and all other evolutionists, would never support anything a creationist said, and would never question evolution)
Now let's imagine I ADMIT to a problem such as; "some of the bodies were killed by a mysterious force of pressure but no skin was broken"...but now imagine I give an answer to that later on, and you quote-mined my comment about the mysterious force. Now let's pretend my answer is this; "there was an avalanche!"
Now what am I getting at with this example? My point is this; if it can be shown that something we "quote-mined" is later explained by the person we quote-mined but their explanation is WRONG, then that means the complaint we quoted, logically speaking, is still a problem.
For that mysterious incident, there was no possibility of an avalanche, no evidence of one either, meaning that the admission we quote-mined is still a valid objection.
When we quote Gould, his famous admissions about the lack of intermediates, it's important to remember his explanation for the missing intermediates was punctuated equilibrium, but since science basically doesn't accept punctuated equilibrium, then that means his complaints about missing intermediates, are still a problem for evolution.
Conclusion: Lots of the time, evolutionists use the quote-mining accusations as an easy slam-dunk, point scoring tactic, when in fact if they looked further into what we are saying, they would have to admit that a lot of the problems evolutionists tacitly admit to, are still problems for evolution, and those problems are not solved by just-so conjecture. So it is largely IRRELEVANT that we are quoting a portion of what the evolutionists have said, because the rest of what they say is usually just conjectural opinion, anyway, which doesn't really remove the significance of what they admitted to.
So if you quote mine me Driewerf when I said, "I admit I shot Kennedy, I even have the rifle and the bullets to match.", would it matter that you quote-mined me if you left out the part where I said; "but I done it all on the Lord Jesus Christ's say so, He Himself told me to do it and He said anyone who puts me in prison for it will die an ugly death".
Driewerf, should I go free, and not be convicted of murder, because you only quoted a portion of what I said? (in the same way, should we let evolutionists off the hook, when they admit that evolution is a crap theory, because later on they go on to give lots of weak excuses for the important things they admitted to? )
EXAMPLE: "well I admit to the law of non-contradiction I really do, the fact is I can't be myself while at the same time not being myself. The moon can't be there and not be there at the same time. But I believe deep down in my evo-heart that if materialism is true, there is an answer, perhaps the moon can exist and not exist, for we don't everything!"
mike the wiz quotes this part:well I admit to the law of non-contradiction I really do, the fact is I can't be myself while at the same time not being myself. The moon can't be there and not be there at the same time
Driewerf complains thus;
Fictional Driewerf: You quote-mined him! His full quote was that there could somehow be a way the moon can exist and not exist.
Mike the wiz: so you really think we can ignore non-contradiction, because he went on to explain that he believes in contradictions anyway, and I missed that part? You're saying it's not at all important that he admitted to the facts, simply because he went on to give a lot of evolutionary-waffle about why he doesn't accept the facts despite admitting to them? You're saying I shouldn't go to prison for murder if I admitted to it because we missed out the excuses I gave for why I justify murder?