I read most of that... but I also follow the 'Humphries' link to The Institution for Creation Research site.

In their explanation of their purpose and methods we find this:

"The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

All origins research must begin with a premise. ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. "

Well, that's clear enough! It is also exactly what I argue is a logical fallacy of "assuming the consequent"... one sort of circular reasoning. If one does accept such premises, one must find fault with any science which dares to find anything contradictory.

As Pete says, we go round in circles. I'm getting a bit dizzy.