All quotes by creationist, against evolution, will always be referred to as misleading. As well as any information that does not conform to a evolutionist view.
The scientific view of the comparison of evidence, and the people, base solely on what it supports, and nothing else.
If said evidence supports evolution, it is always viable in scientific circles. The person who brought it to mind is always well educated, never uses fraudulent information, and only goes to the finest schools available.
If said evidence supports creation, or it's God, it can "never" be viable. Is always misleading. And the person who always brings it up, is always a fraud who is uneducated. And goes to a school that does not exist.
A evolutionist scientist who jumps the boat for creation, is a fraud. And even though science had no questions about his or her education, it is in question now because of their decision. The school they went to becomes a diploma mill, and is now considered not accredited. Even though, as long as they believed evolution, all of this was "no problem".
Don't believe this?
1) Does science ever give any credit to a creationist for finding evidence without mocking them in the next breathe?
2) Does science ever speak kindly about someone changing their mind from evolution to creation, even though it is their choice to make?
3) Will science ever accept creation evidence without first putting creationist education on the chopping block, as a means of determining of whether said evidence is viable before even looking at it?
4) Will science quit trying to compete with a religious belief on something they claim is not religious?