To grant him the benefit of the doubt, it's entirely plausible that he's been treated poorly by creationists on other sites.
Just about any forum that treads into politics from time to time has seen its share of bitter debate on evolution/creationism...
[[Returning this to the discussion of the world, it would still be in our best interests to treat the world as though it were old; if we’re dealing, functionally, with a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old, we’re best off treating it as a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old.
Can we agree with this point?]]
Why should we throw away facts and just accept the a priori beliefs of one side? That isn’t science- that’s dogma. There are scientific facts that do indeed point to a young earth, and so no- it wouldn’t be in our best interest to just throw it all out hte window and beleive the opposition. The fact is that hte methods used to measure ‘old earth’ are based entirely on assumptions, and all the systems used have serious problems trhaT make them unreliable and untrustworthy- You’re asking that those who don’t beleive the earth is old should just ignore any evidneces for yoiung earth, then that they should just accept the measurements systems that have been proven faulty, and just simply trust that the assumptions of Macroevolutionsits and old earth scientists are right desp[ite the fact that they can’t determien with any degree of accuracy how old the earth is, nor can they know what the conditions were when the earth was supposedly as old as they say- After years of looking into the situation, it has become clear to me that despite their grandiose posturing, they really have nothign of any scientific substance to offer other than wild biologically impossible scenarios to offer.