Dishonest, ignorant, or does it matter?

I just watched a great video by potholer54 on the "controversial" (among people who don't know wtf they're talking about) subject of carbon dating and just had to post it here:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY

It leads me to question these unfortunately common tactics of creationists to explain their ideological viewpoints. In this case the never-failing-to-amuse Kent Hovind manages to quote-mine papers, skew findings to achieve his desired explanation, ignore already well-known limitations of the technology within the scientific community to show what's already been found and worked around, and ignore direct warnings from scientists over the fact that the results he'd get were KNOWN to not be of what he was trying to find. And yet he goes right ahead anyway and does all of this to "prove" that carbon dating doesn't work when it's clearly only HE that isn't working properly.

Now most assume this guy is just plain dishonest. And given his history of and imprisonment over tax evasion, it's a fair assumption. But it's not definitely the case. It's also entirely possible that this guy is a complete idiot. Yes, yes, he's a "doctor," and he speaks in a way that suggests some level of intelligence, but those aren't proof either. And then there's the old cognitive dissonance issue where he believes his viewpoint so strongly that he'll do anything to back it up, justifying the dishonesty to the point where he doesn't even realize he's being dishonest. I think it's likely the first problem or the last, the first placing the blame entirely on Hovind, the last putting more of the blame on the overall concept that's poisoned his mind so deeply against reality.

At the end of the day, believe what you will, but don't fucking lie about it to me or impressionable people. Stick to facts, stick to proof, stick to reliable evidence, stick to reality, or STFU. You're not helping yourself or anyone else by spreading arguments that are provably wrong, and especially arguments that were already proven wrong to you BEFORE you used them. Adjust, learn, adapt, and evolve your arguments as you learn. I know it runs contradictory to your view that the world is nothing but cold stone facts written in an ancient book, but the truth is our survival depends on adaptation, and you know it. Why else would you have renamed "creation" to "intelligent design?" You know your tactics have to change if they're going to have any shot at success, and this tactic of continuing to use arguments that were disproven is one of them. Move on. And if you run out of such arguments, maybe it's time to reconsider your position. You know, the way rational people do.