Abaddon you made the assertion that: "It's no different with the evolution/creation debate. You will find the hard-line literal creationists typically DON'T have formal education or qualifications. You will find that if they have qualifications they are often NOT from mainstream institutions."
Such a statement implies that the major portion of creationists are lacking in a proper formal education. Since the majority of creation scientists do in fact have legitimate qualifications, I posted a statement from talk origins (your recommended site) verifying that the major portion of creationist scientists do in fact have legitimate qualifications. The underlined portions were meant to emphasise that the major portion of them have legitimate quaifications. Here is my quote:
From your talk origins site:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
It would be wrong to infer from this list that all creationists have suspicious credentials. In fact, a good number of prominent creationists have legitimate -- even noteworthy -- doctoral degrees in scientific fields. For example, Duane Gish earned a doctorate in biochemistry from Berkeley, Steve Austin earned a doctorate in geology from Pennsylvania State University, and Kurt Wise earned his doctorate in paleontology from Harvard while studying under Stephen Jay Gould. So just because a few well-known creationists failed to earn their graduate degrees the traditional way does not mean that all or even most of them did.
My talk origins quote was not meant to imply that you claim that all creationists lack qualifications, but to refute your assertion that: "It's no different with the evolution/creation debate. You will find the hard-line literal creationists typically DON'T have formal education or qualifications. You will find that if they have qualifications they are often NOT from mainstream institutions."
While it is true that the talk origins arcticle was against the notion that "all creationists have suspicious credentials" my quoting it was specifically for a refutation of the idea that a major portion of creationists lack proper qualifications. The talk origins arcticle makes two points - that it wrong to infer that all creationists have suspicious qualifications, - and that the most of them have legitimate qualifications. I was quoting the arcticle for the second point (ie: that most of them have legitimate qualifications.) However, I can now see that it would have been possible to interpret my quote as possibly implying that you were claiming that all creationists lack proper qualifications (which I never intended to do).
So I apologize for any ambiguity on this.