I did read it. I appreciated the effort towards good-faith debate greatly, too.
There is no way that the Earth is 6000 years old, so it starts from a false premise. When starting from a false premise, and with a predetermined outcome in mind (IE, creationism) and with a system of information, theory, and ongoing research as VAST and elastic as our body of scientific knowledge, I'm not surprised that there are nooks and crannies where folks can make some hay.... but it's not science.
(As an analogy, I bet the Toasterists of the world could completely disassemble a modern car and "prove" that it HAS to be descended from a toaster. That speaks to the complexity and diversity of parts in a modern car; not the viability of Toasterism!)
It's this kind of pseudoscience, reprepresented as being equal to the massive body of vetted research and study of the physical world, that needs to be prevented from being presented to our children in public schools as fact.
