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.
True, because in either case the universe is some 14 billion years old.
That's why I said, the theory of evolution does not fall outside of such a preposterous proposition.
What "preposterous proposition" are you talking about? You are not being very clear here on what you mean.
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.
On the contrary, there is no reason to assume the age of the universe is any different than it looks.
The universe is as old as it is, but no one is quite sure how old.
Think again. If a god created you yesterday as a 70-year-old man complete with appropriate memories and an objectively verifiable history, then to suggest that you are anything but 70 years old is an act of apparent insanity.