Is flawed logic in itself.
I had a wonderful teacher in Civil Engineering with a PhD in Engineering and immense skill in the computation of harmonic wind induced vibrations in truss frames and other such things.
They also had a strong personal belief in young earth and other creationalist notions for which they had no professional background or grasp of radioactive dating whatsoever.
People with STEM PhD's are not immune to error or projecting expertise beyond their experience and qualifications.
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-25/new-dating-technique-...
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-01-14/indonesia-sul...
* https://therangeskarratha.com.au/explore/rock-art
It's a philosophical argument of the truthiness of texts recording goat herders begetting goat herders Vs rates of change in observable physical features of the earth.
Are you saying the earth is less than 10,000 old?
Then you're just making it up as you go along.
So, when you say Christian creationism is “evidence based”, you mean a “reasonable interpretation” of a text with a whole litany of direct internal inconsistencies, and which itself has no evidence (leaving aside personal faith) of being anything other than a collection of mythology, supports it and not, you know, actual material evidence?