I read that discussion, but did not see how it was dishonest. He had a lot of "whys" about why there isn't a watertight argument, which one would expect. Leaving out all of his explanations of why there are no watertight arguments doesn't change the fact that he agrees that there aren't any.
In fact, the end of his quote is even what many creationists on this board have been trying to point out:
"But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
You might try actually reading the link rather than just posting it.