All right, commenters, you aren’t doing your job. I get enough creationist nonsense in my private email, you are the ones who are supposed to smash the creationist lackwits who are babbling in the comments here. Now one of them, this fellow Grant, is apparently unsatisfied with the drubbing you were supposed to give him, and is now trying to pester me personally by email.

I’m also going to rebuke you Australians — he’s one of yours, running some kind of web design studio, where he claims 14 years of experience in “Science”. Come on, take this personally and rip into him.

You believe the world is older than 6000 years. I believe it is not. Do you want to call me a dingbat also? Or can you possibly raise your intelligence level a little higher to discuss things more maturely. (I actually believe we need some laws to protect the earth, unlike the senator)

If you know science, and I’m hoping you do, you will know that science CANNOT prove what happened at the beginning of the earth (whenever it was). All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory. So far, I can’t see how it disproves my belief in 6000 years, so my belief stays. You can insult my intelligence if you like (you probably do), but it doesn’t change the facts about what science can and can’t prove.

It would be nice if both sides could have sensible meaningful discussions over their beliefs and interpretations, but, unfortunately, many on the evolution/billions of years side aren’t interested in proper debate, only in insulting those opposing them – which suggests something about their intelligence, perhaps? One person once suggested that people who believe in an age of 6000 were worse than Islamic terrorists! That is absolutely ridiculous. When was the last time a young-earther killed 3000 people in a day?

I am not a scientist, but many scientists disagree on this (and indeed many other matters), and they are well-recognised, well-respected scientists. I have read much about this (from both sides), I have been presented one side of the argument by media and society, but I have decided that 6000 years actually makes sense to me based on the evidence.

Please refrain from the unintelligent, insulting, degrading name calling jus tbecause you disagree.

Yeah, he’s a dingbat, to put it mildly. The age of the earth is not a matter of personal belief, where you can just say “I have my facts and you have yours, and we draw different conclusions from them” — we actually have a huge body of mutually overlapping and supporting lines of evidence from physics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, and biology that all converge on the same answer: the earth is billions of years old. The only way Grant can claim that it makes sense to believe the earth is only 6000 years old is for him to completely ignore (or, more likely, be completely ignorant of) the evidence.

So how about turning this thread into a summary of the evidence for the age of the earth? Go to it, people, tear him apart with the science. Let’s see him respond here to the facts, and his lack of knowledge thereof.

Oh, and don’t insult him for just disagreeing. You’ll have to insult him for being a frakkin’ arrogant ignoramus.