Why don't you learn what a theory says before judging it?
When creationists, especially young earthers, come here, they try to bash mainstream, well-accepted scientific theories, but they discredit themselves by posing questions that demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the theory. This is not true of all Theists; I recognize that many believe in these theories, and this question does not address them so much. I'm talking about the people who trash these theories, despite knowing full-well that they have never actually studied them to see if their criticisms are valid (and, in all the years I've been here, they never are; even a cursory understanding of the theory would reveal why). I have my more cynical ideas about why this is true, but for the sake of trying not to be too judgmental, I would like to hear their defense.
Why don't you learn what a theory says before passing judgment on it? Is there any harm in questioning what other creationists say and coming to your own conclusions? Even if you are certain they must be wrong because they make a literal reading of Genesis difficult (if not impossible), would there be anything bad about learning what the theory says in order to understand whether or not common criticisms have not already been addressed?
Again, I have my reasons for why this really happens (message me for details, or just look at some of my previous answers), but I want to hear your side of things. Why don't you first study the theories you criticize? Why don't you find out what the proponents really do say? Why not take the step that makes your argument at least credible?