Why make assumptions when you can compare their lies to the real facts? For example, Hovind was famous for claiming that carbon dating of two pieces from the same mammoth produced wildly different dates. The truth of the matter is that the two dates were from two different mammoths found hundreds of miles apart.
http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/digicam/mammoth.html
Duane Gish trotted out this whopper one time:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
Even when he was shown that it was untrue, and even when given the chance to correct it, he never did. He stuck by his guns and kept the lie alive.
Time after time after time, creationists are caught telling these whoppers, and they never stop doing it even when corrected. Even worse, those lies keep getting repeated by well meaning people in these forums, and we have to keep correcting each one, over and over and over and over . . .