neo-x wrote:Deficit of trust in scientific evidence is the problem here.
No, the problem is that you are trying to use scientific evidence to answer what is really a historical question.
A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam immediately after he was created and tried to estimate his age? If he assumed Adam had been born as a baby and grown to adulthood just as his previous patients had his estimate would would be much higher than the actual age. He had all the scientific information necessary to determine Adam's age; he lacked historical information. He didn't know that Adam had been created directly by God rather than conceived in his mothers womb.
Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth lack one vital piece of information. They don't know whether the earth was created by God or whether it came into existence gradually as a result of the physical processes we see going on now. They simply assume that the second possibility is the true one and interpret their findings according to that belief.
The difference between young earth creationists and young earth creationists isn't their beliefs about science but about history. The Bible reveals a historical fact; God created the earth in six days. Young earth creationists believe what the Bible say; old earth creationists deny it. They don't deny it openly but instead say that these weren't literal days which is the same thing as saying that creation didn't happen the way the Bible says it did.