And, yes... Greg F's post IS relevant in this discussion. It is worth posting the synopsis:

"The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections."

Now, I have little doubt that Pete would probably claim that it applies to us as well as himself... he has said as much several times, asserting that we ignore or miss the point of what Ham & other creationists offer. I am not sure how to go about explaining to Pete... or anyone else locked into such a position... how science works and what the rules are for analyzing & interpreting data.

I spent quite a bit of time a few years ago pointing out to *daylia* flaws in her arguments for Astrology... but she wanted to believe that it was accurate and relevant, whether it could be explained or not.
Today, there are many...way TOO many... who 'believe' that one race (always their own) is fundamentally superior to certain others. It eventually boils down to an emotional/psychological mindset. There is little one can do except strive to keep such viewpoints from being embedded in law and being used to affect the rights of those who do NOT hold such views.