I agree...but let's explore what those things mean. When I see someone seriously maintain that the universe is 6000 years old, it is clear to me that the person is deeply mired in ignorance. Putting myself in their shoes, if I were holding beliefs so deeply in conflict with established facts, I would insist upon being disabused of them immediately. For me to patronize them by saying, "OK, that's your perspective," or, "well, your 6,000-year history of the universe is just as valid as my 13.7-billion-year history," would just be rank disrespect.
I challenge people's misconceptions because I respect them as adults, and because I wish all of my own misconceptions to be destroyed as soon as evidence permits. In fact, that's what it means to choose a career in science.
I do understand your frustration. At the same time, I strongly suspect most of the issue based tension comes - not from the physical evidence - but from the theories each side proposes to explain the evidence.
On the one hand, science offers a religion-ignoring materialist explanation which is repugnant to some who counter with a religion-first explanation which is equally repugnant to the other side. Because of the two worldviews, it cannot be resolved - but it is very useful to discuss the issues for those who are looking for answers.
Personally, I rarely get into the biological or geological aspects of the debate because my interest lies with relativity and string theory - physics/math. I think a lot of common ground can be found in that area.
Moreover, because of the posts on Free Republic (Nebullis in particular) I've found some very interesting current research in biological self organizing complexity.
I wouldn't have known about that were it not for these threads and the ongoing discussion.
So everyone's forbearance is much appreciated by those of us who are here to learn.