Yes, how dare we distort creationist claims by actually examining them. When a creationist such as Kent Hovind says that a single drop of water can cover the entire planet if it's spread thinly enough, we should accept that at face value.
Likewise, when Hovind claims that a -300 degree (he doesn't say whether that's Fahrenheit, Celsius or Kelvin, but who cares, right?) ice meteor flew into the solar system, began to break apart into bits that made the rings of Saturn and cratered the moon, went faster as it approached earth because of the inverse square law, then completely busted apart because it reached terminal velocity, whereupon the fragments were sucked down to the North and South poles by the Earths' magnetic field, whereupon it made the ice caps, froze the mammoths where they stood, and cracked the earth's crust so that all the water exploded out and flooded the land, we shouldn't try to verify it or check it according to what we know about physics, math, chemistry, geology, hydrology or astronomy, we should simply accept it as a fact and move on. Link. And, likewise, when other creationists say that water pressure changes radioactive decay rates, or that information is never added to a genome, or that radioisotope dating can't be used to verify anything's age because the laws of physics were wildly different 6000 or so years ago (though they're still reliable enough to date things that don't directly contradict a literal reading of Genesis), we shouldn't examine those, either. We should simply accept them, and move on.
Because everyone knows that facts are merely strongly-held opinions, and that all opinions become more true the more tightly you hold onto them.