Next time a Creationists evidence is universally accepted, then they are found out to be deceptive, I expext the same response from you.
Intellectually honest people are very disturbed, and those that are not wave their hands.
I'm not aware of a Creationist evidence that has ever been anything close to widely, much less universally, accepted as being what some set of creationists offered it to be. Usually, by the time it gets a close scrutiny from someone not drowning in the creo Koo-Aid, it's a fraud or a misinterpretation. I see two problems for the creationist evidence pile: a one-hundred-percent reject rate and a zero percent remainder.
Intellectually honest people are very disturbed, and those that are not wave their hands.
All of this one individual's work (and that of the lab he ran) must for now be considered suspect. Anything important he ever did will have to be redone. Do I have it wrong? Am I being dishonest?