I was reading recently that when Copernicus and Bruno and a few others first proposed that the earth was moving around the sun, there were several reasons for their theory to be rejected. Christians had a hard time with it because, well, it wasn't mentioned in the bible so it couldn't be true. Then there was the problem of "firmament", which is how everyone looked at earth. It was unmoving. People saw stuff move around the earth (sun, moon, stars) but they had no way of experiencing that fact that the earth itself was moving. Hence the idea that our planet was orbiting around the sun felt ludicrous. Of course all of this was exacerbated by the low education level of the average person.
Keep in mind that you and I are traveling at a speed in excess of 170,000 miles an hour via our planets spin, our orbit around the sun, and our sun's orbit around the center of the Milky Way. Does that make it hard to walk down a sidewalk, or make it windy every single day? Nope. So it can be hard to explain to some that we're actually whizzing through space right now.
In any case, the argument saying that our planet was in orbit around the sun sounded ludicrous, because it didn't match experience of knowledge. There was no way for this new info to be rapidly assimilated. Bruno had to fry first.
For different reasons, Christians who insist that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old feel a strong need to hold on to those beliefs, regardless of the evidence. In fact, we humans are pretty good at using evidence against us as evidence for us, and some of us seem able to redefine the meaning of any given piece of evidence and use that as absolute proof that they are right. Just like conspiracy nuts, who, when confronted with contrary information, they redefine it as proof that their conspiracy theories are true, otherwise that information wouldn't have to exist. Something like that.
People with a vested interest in a tiny story seem seldom to be able to look at the big picture. They seem unable to comprehend information on the scale that is available when it comes to theories about the formation of the universe or evolution or even more recent problems like global climate change. None of that information fits into their reality, so of course it has to be false.
And we need to be a bit careful when we toss all Christians into the same basket. Catholics, on the whole (as per their Pope), accept evolution. They just give their god a bit more credit that we atheists do. So not all believers insist on silly timelines.
That said, the AIG folks are morons. Hence 190 scientists can seem like a fairly big number, especially when a guy can only count to 6,000. And i wouldn't even care about that if they didn't have brethren busy legislating their way into our bedrooms and bodies even as they insist that we leave them alone.
Yea, they are morons. Anyone who thinks "peer review" means that people peered at it during their coffee break or something (which is the only way anything they publish could get "reviewed"), deserves that title.