“A) Why should anyone believe Todd's story?”
Not offering counter evidence but attacking Todd straight up? Yeah, that’s rational debate.
“Anti-Creationists have been known to lie and misrepresent.”
And if we stipulate this, you can then show Todd is lying/misrepresenting?
"They have also been known to spread those lies and misrepresentations.”
AIG has a page on their website of poor arguments(including lies and misrepresentations) that honest creationists should not use. Is there an evolution-supporter site of a similar nature? Something like ‘here are the Hovind attacks that anti-creationists shouldn’t use’?
"B) Wouldn't we have to know how the Earth was formed before we could know when it is was formed?”
Not necessarily. Pretty sure when scientists say ‘the earth is this many’ they also have the information on ‘and we know this because we observed X.’ You can pretend dating methods don’t work, but that’s not finding actual fault with the conclusion.
“We know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes.”
And we’d have to know how the agency sped up the process to find fault with the dating, right? I mean,that’s your logic, right?
"And given all the other factors that have to be in place just to sustain complex living organisms, who, in their right mind, would accept sheer dumb luck as an explanation over ID, just for our planet's existence?”
Argument from incredulity. Such a winning entry.
“And if ID is the best explanation,”
It’s not.
It’s superstition dressed in a lab coat for Halloween and pretending to be science.
“and we know intelligent agents can speed up processes...”
You’re just rejecting the conclusion because you want a literal interpretation of Genesis to be true. You cannot prove it, you can’t find actual fault in the observations, but you’re pretending your incredulity is superior to research.