The former (YEC-idm, Last Thursday-ism) is a statement of belief in something intrinsically untestable, insupportable, and outright ridiculous. The latter (evolution) is supported the natural history of our planet as well as every science known to man.
In other words, what makes "one-billion-yearism" any less susceptible to the fact that our observation of time is limited?
Another non-sequitur. If some god(s) created the universe Last Thursday in a manner so that it looks just like it was created 14 billion years ago by the Big Bang or the Big Bang happened 14 billion years, how would you expect to tell the difference? And, so why would it make any difference?
It doesn't make any difference. That's why I said, the theory of evolution does not fall outside of such a preposterous proposition. There is no need, nor to my thinking is it plausible, to assume "apparent age" as a way to explain the age of the universe. The universe is as old as it is, but no one is quite sure how old.
But you know what? If some joker comes to me and says he has a way to test for apparent age, I will let him lay down his hypotheses, develop tests, report on it, and judge for myself whether his hypothesis and procedures merit the status of "theory." Dogmatic evolutionists, on the other hand, are "above" all that, or so it seems.