Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry

[Stu]

Let's see if I can list some of the things I found wrong in only the first 4 1/2 minutes of the first video. I'll try to quote as best I can, but I wrote down the quotes as I was listening to the video. I'll put the time that each quote appeared in the video.

1) :35 mark:
He said he's a "teaching missionary talking about the truths of creation vs evolution."

He hits us right off the bat, with the cult like belief system he's going to try to indoctrinate us with. I'm not sure that Christian missionaries are supposed to teach creationism. I thought the mission of a missionary, was to preach the gospel.

2) :55 mark
"Evolutionists say that we are just the result of a cosmic accident. That we are just thinking animals without design or purpose."

Some evolutionists may say that, but it's not what all evolutionists believe. And it certainly isn't part of what evolution is about. This is a logical fallacy, called poisoning the well.

3) 1:22 mark

"...and the assumption of an old age of the earth and the universe."

Misleading. People who believe in an old earth and universe, have no evidence, but merely assume an old age?

4) 1:55 mark

"Evolutionists have no proof that the earth is millions and billions of years old. They simply claim it."

Again, misleading. Does he seriously believe that first, anyone studying the age of the earth thinks that science could possibly "prove" the age of the earth? This guy is really supposed to be a scientist, and he doesn't know that? And second, scientists simply claim that the earth is billions of years old, without evidence?

5) 3:15 mark

"Is there anything about a rock that'll tell you how old it is? Is there anything about the size, feel, shape, taste,...that will tell you how old it is?"

Does he seriously not realize how scientists measure the age of a rock?

6) 4:20 mark

"Supposedly this Big Bang occurred some perhaps 20 billion years ago..."

13.8 billion years ago. Not 20 billion. He's off by over 6 billion years, or over 40%. Not very scientific. Not very honest.

7) 4:34

He says The Bible tells us the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

And he offers no proof of his assertion, whatsoever.

Purposely misleading?

And then he goes into the idea that just because man has found a way to artificially form diamonds very quickly, that must mean that they naturally don't really take over a billion years to form.

Misleading?

1) Cult-like?? What makes you say something like that. From the get-go you are insulting him without good reason. You make that assertion about him, but YOU seem to have a healthy dislike towards creationism or something with that attitude. What's wrong with teaching creationism as part of your ministry work?

2) Again you are clearly nitpicking and have a bias against this video from the get-go - CLEARLY he is talking about atheist evolutionists who hold to that view, and not theistic evolutionists. You clearly have an issue with the man or are unnecessarily nitpicking looking for faults.

3) Many assume an OEC view and many assume an YEC view.

4) Again, there is evidence for both views, so clearly he is expressing his own views.

5) Watch further, he goes into detail.

6) Does it really matter in terms of 6000 vs 20 billion/13.8 billion years? But I'm sure he will accept the correction if offered.

7) Well that is what happens when you go off half-cocked Rick. He goes into detail further in the video for why the earth is 6 000 years old. I suggest you watch the whole presentation before accusing someone of being misleading......

8 ) Well it certainly is proof that diamonds could take less time to form and that they don't have to take millions of years to form.

[RickD]

Stu wrote:
1) Cult-like?? What makes you say something like that.

http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

Stu wrote:
From the get-go you are insulting him without good reason.

Not insulting him. I'm giving an honest critique of what he said in the video, like you asked from me.

Stu wrote:
You make that assertion about him, but YOU seem to have a healthy dislike towards creationism or something with that attitude.

When people come out of cult-like systems, because they realize that what they believed is wrong, then yes, I'd say that a dislike for that cult-like system is healthy.

Stu wrote:
What's wrong with teaching creationism as part of your ministry work?

I explained what's wrong, already. He claims to be a missionary. Christian Missionaries are supposed to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ, to those in their mission field. They're not supposed to preach pseudoscience and unbiblical creation beliefs.

Stu wrote:
2) Again you are clearly nitpicking and have a bias against this video from the get-go - CLEARLY he is talking about atheist evolutionists who hold to that view, and not theistic evolutionists. You clearly have an issue with the man or are unnecessarily nitpicking looking for faults.

I thought that you posted the videos so people would view them, and give their opinions about the content. Critiquing is not nitpicking. And he didn't differentiate between different types of evolutionists. He just used the term "evolutionist".

Stu wrote:
3) Many assume an OEC view and many assume an YEC view

Again, saying that evolutionists "assume" an old age for the earth and universe, means by definition of "assume", that evolutionists believe in an old earth and universe, without evidence. That's just misleading.

Stu wrote:
4) Again, there is evidence for both views, so clearly he is expressing his own views.

That's not what he said! He said that evolutionists have no "proof". He didn't say "evidence". As a self proclaimed Dr., he should know the difference between proof and evidence. And saying that evolutionists just "claim" the earth is millions and billions of years old, without evidence is dishonest.

Stu wrote:
5) Watch further, he goes into detail

I'm sure he does. His knowledge of pseudoscience is boundless.

Stu wrote:
6) Does it really matter in terms of 6000 vs 20 billion/13.8 billion years? But I'm sure he will accept the correction if offered.

I highly doubt it. Cult leaders don't like to be corrected.

Stu wrote:
7) Well that is what happens when you go off half-cocked Rick. He goes into detail further in the video for why the earth is 6 000 years old. I suggest you watch the whole presentation before accusing someone of being misleading......

No Stu. He's misleading, because the Bible does not claim that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Stu wrote:
8 ) Well it certainly is proof that diamonds could take less time to form and that they don't have to take millions of years to form.

And instead of dealing with the evidence that diamonds take a billion plus years to form in nature, he proves that diamonds can be formed quickly, when man is involved. In other words, he does nothing with the actual evidence that shows an old earth.

For anyone with ears to hear, and eyes to see, I ask you to take a look at these common cult tactics, and it will be clear what's going on.

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

[Philip]

I will say this about Christians and their age of the Creation views: Whenever you see someone obsessed or overtly aggressive on this subject - to the point that they use it as almost a litmus test as to whether others are a Christian or not, or that assert one's views on this topic reveals how seriously they take their faith, or God's Word, or it's accuracy - well, it's a big problem and they are almost certainly creating unnecessary divisions, hard feelings, or arguments. In my experience, VERY few who are exceptionally vocal about this issue know how to show grace or tend to care very much about the people they are dialoging with - as what they really care more about is their pride and winning an argument at all costs. And I would say that this is true whether a person like this is a YEC or OEC, or a theistic evolutionist. Doesn't matter. I've know a lot of truly authentic Christians who have held each of these views. What Christians hold in common (their mutual faith in Christ and belief that He is the Creator) tends to be FAR more important than our points of disagreement. And discussing similar kinds of issues should have this same caution - Reformed Theology/Calvinism/Arminianism, Last Days timelines, etc.

But many of these issues DO have key levels of importance, and with mature, grace-filled conversations, they can be rewarding. It took me a very long time to learn not to be TOO aggressive about my OLD earth (and other) views and to see they aren't near the big honking deal I once thought they were. What matters is that we believe in and follow Jesus, and believe that Scripture is His trustworthy word, and to encourage each other to focus on our relationship with Christ. And so we just need to use maturity in how we debate these issues, and what degree of importance each actually is. And a huge part of having civil conversations is to not assume what another person believes, and it's usually best to ask clarifying questions as to what you believe their position to be - even if you think you know it.

[RickD]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

It's wrong when we Christians hold a belief about something that leads to an us against them mentality. When we've reached the point of pitting ourselves against anyone who doesn't hold to our beliefs, we've already lost sight of our real purpose in life. We are to love God first, and love our neighbor. How can we love our unbelieving neighbor, if we consider him our enemy, just because he doesn't hold to our dogmatic interpretation of scripture?

And how can we love our brother in Christ, if we continually misrepresent what he says and believes?


If it walks like a cult, talks like a cult, and smells like a cult, it's probably a cult.

[Warnerchorb]

We were not present at major events in ancient history, but through logical analysis and historical evidence, reliable conclusions are reached about what happened in the past. Yet, young-earth creationists disagree. They firmly state that we cannot be sure about historical events because were were not there in person to see it happen. Although it would not be too challenging to refute the views of the young-earth creationists I think, I often wondered how sure we this generation can be of the validity of records on ancient people living for 700, 900 even a 1000 years. Maybe they calculated a year different than we do today? Maybe reference was made to visitors from another solar system? Or maybe people really grew that old? I would love to hear the opinion of fellow forum members on the views of the young-earth creationists.

[Philip]

Welcome, Warnerchorb!

I see you're not a Christian. So, what drives your interest in the age of the earth and universe? I would assume you take an old earth view, as do most you will encounter here do. And theistically speaking, whether the earth is ancient or very young, it doesn't answer the far more important issue of the origins of the universe.

[Stu]

Stu wrote:
1) Cult-like?? What makes you say something like that.

http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

Stu wrote:
From the get-go you are insulting him without good reason.

Not insulting him. I'm giving an honest critique of what he said in the video, like you asked from me.

Stu wrote:
You make that assertion about him, but YOU seem to have a healthy dislike towards creationism or something with that attitude.

When people come out of cult-like systems, because they realize that what they believed is wrong, then yes, I'd say that a dislike for that cult-like system is healthy.

Stu wrote:
What's wrong with teaching creationism as part of your ministry work?

I explained what's wrong, already. He claims to be a missionary. Christian Missionaries are supposed to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ, to those in their mission field. They're not supposed to preach pseudoscience and unbiblical creation beliefs.

Stu wrote:
2) Again you are clearly nitpicking and have a bias against this video from the get-go - CLEARLY he is talking about atheist evolutionists who hold to that view, and not theistic evolutionists. You clearly have an issue with the man or are unnecessarily nitpicking looking for faults.

I thought that you posted the videos so people would view them, and give their opinions about the content. Critiquing is not nitpicking. And he didn't differentiate between different types of evolutionists. He just used the term "evolutionist".

Stu wrote:
3) Many assume an OEC view and many assume an YEC view

Again, saying that evolutionists "assume" an old age for the earth and universe, means by definition of "assume", that evolutionists believe in an old earth and universe, without evidence. That's just misleading.

Stu wrote:
4) Again, there is evidence for both views, so clearly he is expressing his own views.

That's not what he said! He said that evolutionists have no "proof". He didn't say "evidence". As a self proclaimed Dr., he should know the difference between proof and evidence. And saying that evolutionists just "claim" the earth is millions and billions of years old, without evidence is dishonest.

Stu wrote:
5) Watch further, he goes into detail

I'm sure he does. His knowledge of pseudoscience is boundless.

Stu wrote:
6) Does it really matter in terms of 6000 vs 20 billion/13.8 billion years? But I'm sure he will accept the correction if offered.

I highly doubt it. Cult leaders don't like to be corrected.

Stu wrote:
7) Well that is what happens when you go off half-cocked Rick. He goes into detail further in the video for why the earth is 6 000 years old. I suggest you watch the whole presentation before accusing someone of being misleading......

No Stu. He's misleading, because the Bible does not claim that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Stu wrote:
8 ) Well it certainly is proof that diamonds could take less time to form and that they don't have to take millions of years to form.

And instead of dealing with the evidence that diamonds take a billion plus years to form in nature, he proves that diamonds can be formed quickly, when man is involved. In other words, he does nothing with the actual evidence that shows an old earth.

For anyone with ears to hear, and eyes to see, I ask you to take a look at these common cult tactics, and it will be clear what's going on.

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.

Well then that is what Rich Deem does on this very site by trying to prove that YEC is wrong, and what you Day-Age guys do on a constant basis.

2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.

How exactly did he do that?

3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable

So he's lying now. I could call what you day-agers subscribe to as lies as well then! But fellow Christians don't do that, you pretend (or you don't even realise it) to be tolerant to other views on this site but when presented with someone who strongly holds a different view to you, you just go ahead and call them liars. Not very nice at all.

4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.

He never said that, you are MAKING STUFF UP NOW about him, otherwise known as bearing false witness.
But you certainly did do that - you called him cult-like and liar, so if anything you are the one who is presenting other teachings as a danger. You need to take a look in the mirror, you are wholly intolerant of the YEC stance.

5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

He never said that, you are MAKING STUFF UP NOW about him, otherwise known as bearing false witness.

I'm sure he does. His knowledge of pseudoscience is boundless.

What exactly about what he said is pseudoscience? Be specific.

I highly doubt it. Cult leaders don't like to be corrected.

Like Rich Deem and yourself and anyone who holds an opinion other than someone else? Come on, you are being silly now. Your disdain for young earth creationists is quite alarming. If someone where to give you a taste of your own medicine you would rightly be shocked.

[Philip]

This issue, amongst Christians, has gotten WAY out of control - with people on both sides fanning unnecessary flames that divide believers - noted in my post here: viewtopic.php?p=242264#p242264

[Stu]

This issue, amongst Christians, has gotten WAY out of control - with people on both sides fanning unnecessary flames that divide believers - noted in my post here: viewtopic.php?p=242264#p242264

Hey Rick was the one who started with the name calling. I just posted a couple videos that I found interesting.

All of a sudden just because the speaker was espousing the YEC position, he was a liar, acting cult-like, spouting pseudoscience and deliberately misleading people.

Rick needs to take a good look in the mirror and realise that his day-age beliefs are by no means set in stone, there is plenty of evidence for a young earth. His intolerance for that position on a site like this is completely inappropriate.

[Philip]

Stu, I'm not taking sides or blaming you - just to note that it's not worth escalating - for ANYONE!

[RickD]

Stu wrote:
Hey Rick was the one who started with the name calling. I just posted a couple videos that I found interesting.

Stu, you said that you wanted to know what I thought of the videos, so I told you. Name calling? Seriously? If someone is a thief, it's not ok to call him out on it? I critiqued the first video you posted. If your feelings are going to get hurt, then don't post videos that someone may disagree with. If I'm going to give my opinion about something, I'm going to be as honest, and blunt as I need to be.

Stu wrote:
All of a sudden just because the speaker was espousing the YEC position, he was a liar, acting cult-like, spouting pseudoscience and deliberately misleading people.

Where specifically did I call him a liar, and say he was deliberately misleading people? Please copy and paste my quote, for reference.

I said he was misrepresenting the beliefs/position of those he disagrees with.

stu wrote:
Rick needs to take a good look in the mirror and realise that his day-age beliefs are by no means set in stone, there is plenty of evidence for a young earth. His intolerance for that position on a site like this is completely inappropriate.

First, I've never claimed that my day-age belief is set in stone. That's just another misrepresentation. In fact, I've said multiple times in this forum, that I'm open to changing my belief.
Second, there's not a shred of scientific evidence that points to a 6-10 thousand year old earth. None whatsoever.

Third, my intolerance for the YEC belief is the same for my intolerance of any other pseudoscience, or any cult or false religion.

I'm not, nor have I ever tried to hide the fact that I do not like Young Earth Creationism. I have the same tolerance for young earth creationism, that I have for the word-faith movement. Both of which I've experienced first-hand.

Once one comes out of a cult, or a cult like belief system, one tends to have very little tolerance for that system.

I'm not going to apologize for my thoughts on young earth creationism. If you don't want my opinion, then don't ask me for it. Word of advice: If you don't want a video to be criticized, don't post it.

I have nothing against you personally, Stu. We just couldn't disagree more on this subject.

[Philip]

A huge problem with these kind of arguments is when people pick a specific person or personal experience and try to extrapolate it to everyone on one of whatever side. I know a lot of young earth guys that almost never talk about it. And though I lean toward old earth, when I do have these discussions with most YECs I personally know, most of them are civil and respectful, and we don't each try to extrapolate or type each other with whatever insulting loudmouth they've read or experienced. I'd no more use Ken Hamm or Kent Hovind to debate YEC views - or at least the discussion should stick to the facts asserted by whatever individual or group - responding with whatever one sees as factual or refuting information. And I've run into militant OECs who place far too much emphasis on their OEC views, and arrogantly so.

When debating what should only be FACTS, it's really dumb to get into whatever group or person on whichever side acted like a moron. It's like the idiots who have a really bad experience with one person or several of another race, and then they use that as if it represents an entire race of people. AND by focusing on personalities that have said and acted dumb, the REAL facts to consider or debate get lost. I'd never use Ken Ham or Kent Hovind to make a point about YEC beliefs unless I'm questioning a particular contention or asserted fact. Now, to be fair, Rick did criticize some specifics of the video.

But when Rick referenced what I think offers something to think about:

"Christian Missionaries are supposed to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ, to those in their mission field."

Now, I'm quite sure missionaries have a range of views on the age argument. But does that mean they can't have or express an opinion just because they are in missions work? Course not! Yet, of course, they should only make statements that are accurate - especially in quoting another's belief, statements or actions. But that statement SHOULD also mean - and it's good advice for every Christian: Don't let a discussion - even one in disagreement - rise to the level of leaving each side with anger or damaging relations. It's just not worth it! Every mature Christian should realize that letting their emotions make statements that they should know are mostly only going to push someone's buttons is something to be avoided. That's why I often hate this topic - and often politics, etc., discussed here - because it often goes nowhere good. Because people are typically terrible at disagreeing in a diplomatic way.

What particularly ticks me off on this forum is when idiotic arguments blow up that didn't have to rise to that level - and it's typically, mostly, a pride thing - as it could be handled a LOT better. I am all for letting everyone freely express themselves and I don't expect people to agree, or not to have free-flowing discussions with viewpoints that might provoke emotions. But I've seen far too many pointless blowups that could have easily been avoided with a little good judgement and respect. And I will do all I can to help prevent these type discussions from reaching such a point - whether locking or deleting a thread, if necessary.

Good advice to follow! 2 Timothy 2:23 and Titus 3:9

[RickD]

I respect the way that Jac argued for YEC. He used an argument from scripture, to argue his position. And seeing as he was previously an oec, he understands what day-age actually is, and didn't misrepresent the position.

I absolutely respect anyone who is a YEC, and argues as Jac did.

The guy in the video, is a different story, as I've explained.

[Stu]

Stu wrote:
Hey Rick was the one who started with the name calling. I just posted a couple videos that I found interesting.

Stu, you said that you wanted to know what I thought of the videos, so I told you. Name calling? Seriously? If someone is a thief, it's not ok to call him out on it? I critiqued the first video you posted. If your feelings are going to get hurt, then don't post videos that someone may disagree with. If I'm going to give my opinion about something, I'm going to be as honest, and blunt as I need to be.

Stu wrote:
All of a sudden just because the speaker was espousing the YEC position, he was a liar, acting cult-like, spouting pseudoscience and deliberately misleading people.

Where specifically did I call him a liar, and say he was deliberately misleading people? Please copy and paste my quote, for reference.

I said he was misrepresenting the beliefs/position of those he disagrees with.

stu wrote:
Rick needs to take a good look in the mirror and realise that his day-age beliefs are by no means set in stone, there is plenty of evidence for a young earth. His intolerance for that position on a site like this is completely inappropriate.

First, I've never claimed that my day-age belief is set in stone. That's just another misrepresentation. In fact, I've said multiple times in this forum, that I'm open to changing my belief.
Second, there's not a shred of scientific evidence that points to a 6-10 thousand year old earth. None whatsoever.

Third, my intolerance for the YEC belief is the same for my intolerance of any other pseudoscience, or any cult or false religion.

I'm not, nor have I ever tried to hide the fact that I do not like Young Earth Creationism. I have the same tolerance for young earth creationism, that I have for the word-faith movement. Both of which I've experienced first-hand.

Once one comes out of a cult, or a cult like belief system, one tends to have very little tolerance for that system.

I'm not going to apologize for my thoughts on young earth creationism. If you don't want my opinion, then don't ask me for it. Word of advice: If you don't want a video to be criticized, don't post it.

I have nothing against you personally, Stu. We just couldn't disagree more on this subject.

Stu, you said that you wanted to know what I thought of the videos, so I told you. Name calling? Seriously? If someone is a thief, it's not ok to call him out on it? I critiqued the first video you posted. If your feelings are going to get hurt, then don't post videos that someone may disagree with. If I'm going to give my opinion about something, I'm going to be as honest, and blunt as I need to be.

I have no problem with critique whatsoever, what you did is nothing of the sort. You got personal, called him a liar, said he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts to his audience, etc, etc.

Where specifically did I call him a liar, and say he was deliberately misleading people? Please copy and paste my quote, for reference.

I said he was misrepresenting the beliefs/position of those he disagrees with.

Here:

3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable

First, I've never claimed that my day-age belief is set in stone. That's just another misrepresentation. In fact, I've said multiple times in this forum, that I'm open to changing my belief.

Well you don't act that way, certainly to the YEC position you aren't open.

Second, there's not a shred of scientific evidence that points to a 6-10 thousand year old earth. None whatsoever.

You can't be serious.... the Bible gives births, deaths, names of people, etc. whereby we can judge the age of the earth. It's how all the millions of young earth creationists come to that date. You saying there is "not a shred of scientific evidence" maybe just shows that you take the word of science over the Bible. You obviously haven't visited sites like creation.com either where alternatives to OEC are presented.

Third, my intolerance for the YEC belief is the same for my intolerance of any other pseudoscience, or any cult or false religion.

That is just an amazingly arrogant and ludicrous statement to make and proves that you have a zero tolerance attitude towards YEC. How can you be so arrogant as to claim that you above everyone else know that YEC is false. I must be honest the arrogance astounds me.

I could say the same about day-age Christians as well. You also believe in a pseudoscience and have to twist the Bible to make your views relevant, and I could go on. You talk about a cult - how is what McMurtry done any different at all to what Rich Deem's site is dedicated to?? Is Rich also peddling a false religion then, according to you, yes he is.

I'm not, nor have I ever tried to hide the fact that I do not like Young Earth Creationism. I have the same tolerance for young earth creationism, that I have for the word-faith movement. Both of which I've experienced first-hand.

You have proven here that you have zero tolerance for YEC.

Once one comes out of a cult, or a cult like belief system, one tends to have very little tolerance for that system.

Yes, perhaps then you are not the best person to speak on YEC. YEC is hardly a cult. In fact then any denomination/stance of Christianity can then be deemed a cult according to your logic as I have pointed out. Some OECists certainly act like a cult according to your logic anyway.

OEC? Sorry it's a cult. Gap theory? Sorry it's a cult. The fact that you can't see this astounds me. Basically you think you have it all figured out, well in terms of YEC and OEC anyway. You deem anything that is YEC as a cult or lies. Astoundingly arrogant.

I'm not going to apologize for my thoughts on young earth creationism. If you don't want my opinion, then don't ask me for it. Word of advice: If you don't want a video to be criticized, don't post it.

Like I said I have zero problems with criticism, what you done is not criticism, you condemned the man as a liar, cult-like and misleading people on others' stances. That is not criticism that is condemnation and playing the man and not the ball.

I have nothing against you personally, Stu. We just couldn't disagree more on this subject.

And I have nothing personal against you. But you do have something personal against YECists it seems as you call them liars and cultists. You should take a look in the mirror, you aren't criticising your are condemning millions of people who believe in YEC as liars and cultists. Yet it is you who is the one who is so arrogant as to condemn so many people, so who in reality is the (fundamentalist) cultist? You it seems.

[DBowling]

Second, there's not a shred of scientific evidence that points to a 6-10 thousand year old earth. None whatsoever.

You can't be serious.... the Bible gives births, deaths, names of people, etc. whereby we can judge the age of the earth. It's how all the millions of young earth creationists come to that date.

Scriptural genealogies can legitimately be used for judging the age of Adam.
But genealogies can only take you back as far as Genesis 2:7.

Genealogies provide absolutely no time frame information for the events that take place prior to the appearance of Adam in Genesis 2:7.

Using genealogies to date the earth depends on the unScriptural presumption that yom within the immediate context of the Genesis 1 Creation account refers to 24 hours.

There are two Scriptural indicators that demonstrate that yom within the context of Genesis 1 does NOT refer to 24 hours.

- First, there is the repeated phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning". How many hours pass between evening and morning?
It sure isn't 24 hours.
This phrase refers to a transition between days in Genesis 1. This phrase does not identify the length of a yom in Genesis 1.
- Second, there is Genesis 2:4. This is Scriptural Achilles heel for the YEC presumption that yom within the context of the Genesis 1 creation account refers to 24 hours.
How long is a Genesis 2:4 yom?
Again... it sure isn't 24 hours.

Bottom line...
A legitimate Scriptural argument can be made for using genealogies to identify the time frame of the Biblical Adam.
Using genealogies to determine the age of the earth is an unScriptural presumption which is directly contradicted by how yom is used within the immediate context of the Genesis 1 creation account (see Genesis 2:4).

You saying there is "not a shred of scientific evidence" maybe just shows that you take the word of science over the Bible.

No...
It just means that there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support the Young Earth tradition.
There is no contradiction between Scripture and science, because Scripture doesn't claim the earth is 6000 years old.

Science DOES NOT contradict what Scripture teaches about the age of the earth.
Science DOES contradict what the Young Earth Tradition teaches about the age of the earth.

It is wrong (and harmful to the Gospel) to equate the truth of an extraScriptural Young Earth Tradition with the truth of Divinely Inspired Scripture.