I don't think you are seeing "hostility". But rather a bunch of us strongly doubt the consensus view on the age of the earth and the process by which the earth formed.
This article does an excellent job of calling those consensus views "speculation".
Usually when we run into consensus views on "age of the earth", "age of the universe", "macro-evolution", "process of the earth forming" or "global warming", the views are not presented as "speculation" but rather as "fact" with the certainty of religious dogma (note the questioning of the underlying worldview in post 9).
Consequently, those articles do reap hostility because of the non-scientific arrogance in the way the consensus views are presented.
This article lacks that arrogance, but you are still seeing objections to the consensus view.
In fact Wendy1946's post 18 does an excellent job of pointing out a further inconsistency in the consensus view model. If the heavy minerals in the earth's crusts are from extraterrestial sources, and not from the earth's original formation, then you can't really date the earth by those minerals.
Aside from impact events, a number of the cosmic disasters of past ages have involved electrical discharges between our planet and another large or halfway large body and when those discharges involve Birkland currents, you have the possibility of heavy metals actually being formed up out of whatever material is around including pure air, from the Z-pinch effect associated with such currents. Again this totally annihilates the basic logic of isotope dating schemes.
Contrast this so-called “hostility” to how evolutionists typically react in this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2366646/posts
Liberals project alot. The stupefying hypocrisy of liberals never ever ceases to amaze.