There is no reason to interact with the content whatsoever. A viewpoint that places into question an undoubted fact that the earth is billions of years old is merely vapid nonsense, and not worth even passing interaction. My profession isn't that of the scientific community, but that's not the point, because I'm damn sure that its mainstream conclusions about something as fundamental as the earth's age and that of the universe are not to be placed in doubt by the ravings of an idiot (or those who read him under any supposition of legitimacy). Especially when his readership thinks that the bible is factual, historical and true to a word. This is where the bias is to be found. Let's get that straight.Jspear said:Maybe you could try interacting with the content of the articles instead of conveniently dismissing what was said be cause of your own subjective bias.
You are thus so moronically biased, as to look for any escape from a reality that is rather uncomfortable to your religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism, so that you can live blissfully with your illusions. However, when it's plain stupid, something just demands to be said. This is all the more so when accompanied by slanderous and false accusations (I'm the one to be viewed as "biased"). As we say in Italian: "tell that to your sister" (lo dici a tua sorella)!