But how do you explain away scientific evidence that supports "the concept of billions of years"? For example, there are quasars out in space that are more than 20 billion light years away--that is, it took more than 20 billion years for their light to reach Earth.
Gravitational Time Dilation - per Albert Einstein - seems to be the best explanation for apparent long ages of the Earth and Universe.
There are many things which science can not still fully explain with neither a creation nor evolution basis, but the appointed authorities don’t like to discuss any inconvenient facts.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
I will answer your question with a question. Did Jesus grow and ferment the grapes before turning the water into wine? The universe was created through a miracle and with apparent age. Same as the loaves and fishes. The fish were not caught, nor did they evolve first from pond scum while the 5 thousand waited to be fed. The bread was not baked by hand, but was given to feed the 5 thousand miraculously.
Lots of things appear to be old but are not.
If we had not had video and photographic evidence of Mt St Helens carving out canyons in a day, but appearing exactly like the Grand canyon “layers” tey claim took millions of years to make, but hydrological sorting in a day can make identical canyons with the same kind of layers...
If you look at polonium in minerals, if you understand you can under great pressure and energy make petrified wood in a few days, if you understand the fact that all dating methods assume things that may not be true, such as air and atmospheric temperatures being the same as today, and that there are flaws in dating methods, if you look at the fact they are finding organic material (marrow, blood cells) in animals they claim were dead millions of years - conflicting with their own certainties that that is not possible to have organic tissue and cells surviving in millions of years old remains...
Someone mentioned einsteins time dilation for certain reasons why we can see the universe the way we do.
All I know is that things may appear to be older than they actually are. Given bad assumptions and limitations of dating methods, I am open to the idea there are problems with man’s measuring methods. I believe that a reasonable person can look at the evidence and how the evidence is measured that they can have problems with the measuring and the assumptions that go along with the meadurement methods, and based on other evidence of nature being able to create things that if we did not observe, some would look at and say it took millions of years to do, but in reality took far shorter time to create, I believe it supports the concept that the biblical creation account happened the way it is described.
The standard way of explaining it, is a mature, created-in-place universe...i.e. that light radiating from very distant stars and galaxies was created in place at the same time as those distant objects. Another approach, is not assuming the speed of light is constant...
The most creative method, imho, is postulated by an orthodox Jewish physicist from Israel...which says, since Einstein’s relativity law shows us that time is relative to the observer, one could have 6 literal, 24 hour days pass to an observer traveling at very nearly the speed of light...with 15 BILLION YEARS (estimated age of the universe)passing for others.