Twist-and-Shout. A sentence or phrase is lifted out of context. It is mangled as needed to make it appear absurd or at least patently wrong. That's the "twist."
Next comes the "shout." The absurdity is now denounced loud and long. Others are pinged to come and help slay the absurdity monster. The absurdity is compiled into quote salads and used to show that various people hold inconsistent views, are detached from reality, are unable to think, etc. Protests are ignored. There is no stopping the process.
A variant of strawman fallacy. There are other ways to get to a strawman argument, of course. Twist and Shout is basing your strawman upon that single snippet and boring in with tunnel vision from there.
There is nothing wrong with the original text to merit the treatment it has received here. I have been noting that out loud since I was pinged onto this thread by the miscreant himself. Somehow, the concept seems almost ungraspable.
Or the whole thing is parodied beyond recognition. Bush Sr. gives a reasoned supply-side statement of how tax cuts aren't necessarily bad for government tax revenues because the economy can pick up and tax increases aren't necessarily good for tax revenues because they can drive the economy down. Dukakis replies "I hope everyone in the country heard that. He wants to give THE RICH a tax break!"
I have indeed seen this method of "twist and shout" used on both sides of the usual debate. Some excerpts are repeated often from thread to thread evidently to ridicule the correspondent personally (e.g. 1720 is a large number). When it becomes personal, there is more poison in the handle than the point.
And, no, I do not recall any correspondent throwing a "twist and shout" accusation at either betty boop or me until you did so on this thread.
With regard to the original post at 464, the question being fielded was "If you found a metal fastener embedded in coal, which one would you believe was formed first, the coal or the fastener?" vis-a-vis indirect observations.
Concerning that issue, my reply at 555 stands. In the natural sciences, sensory perceptions (whether direct or augmented by instruments) are primary whereas in physics and math, the theory is primary. Therefore, if there is doubt as to the sensory perception, it is a vital issue to the natural sciences whereas to physics, doubts as to the theory itself would be primary.
This is an issue raised by H.H.Pattee in his article on Bridging the Epistemic Cut - biologists are not as concerned when observations do not fit their theories as physicists are. To the physicists, contradictory evidence points to a problem with the theory itself, i.e. the theory is their main focus. The biologist follows the evidence.
Actually, the sentence you are so contentious over speaks for itself. It fairly well summarizes the context, which was to cast doubt upon direct observation. There is a place for such doubt, to be sure. I find it amusing how evolutionists insist on empircal proof (direct observation) from creationists, but are more than willing to let it slide when their own philosophy is put forth. If you're going to call something "unscientific," why not be consistent in applying it to yourself and others?