No, it says that since mankind is not ancient, and since Adam came into existence on Day 6 of Creation, then therefore the Earth is not ancient.
It is obvious, you just refuse to believe what God said.
You are reading your ICR style creationism into Hague's text. It isn't there.
Hague doesn't say, or even imply, that the "days" in Genesis are twenty-four hours. Indeed it should be clear that he contemplates the possibility that they are long ages if you examine the passage I showed you earlier. Hauge first summaries the sequence of creation and then makes a point, in favor of the veracity of Genesis, of highlighting the "comparability" of this sequence to the findings of eminent scientists, which is to say conventional geologists (such as he cites elsewhere, i.e. Dana, Dawson, etc, all of whom were old-earthers).
How are six twenty four hour days, or any such brief period, as your view requires, "comparable" to the vast ages of mainstream geology?
Why does Hague refer to the earth "gradually being fitted for God's children"?
Now, it may be that Hague considered a young earth scheme of some type a possibility. If so it is only hinted at, at best, when Hague precedes a reference to "those countless aeons" the trilobite existed with: "If, as they [the geologists] say, the strata tell the story of countless aeons..."
So I'll give you an "if". Other than that you've got nothing.
Let's summarize:
Hauge, via the credence he gives to the account in Genesis of the origin of races, suggests that the origin of mankind is recent relative to the span of written history. I agree with you completely on this point.
Your next step, however, in claiming that he was thereby affirming that the earth, or life apart from humanity, was comparably recent is completely gratuitous. It's not in the text explicitly, nor is there anything in the text that justifies it by inference.
Your problem goes beyond the fact that Hague says nothing about the Genesis "days" being short. It's also the historical context. Debate about the antiquity of man had been raging for four of five decades by the time this essay was written. All of those debates assumed an ancient earth, and that other lifeforms had preceded man by long ages. Because of this context, if Hague was intending to put forward a different view he would not have left it to inference. He would have been explicit because he would have understood that, otherwise, any educated contemporary reader would have misinterpreted him, assuming the then standard framing of the question of man's antiquity.
More like what a book says God said. When the evidence contradicts the writing, it comes down to, "who're you going to believe? Me, or you're own lying eyes."
Whatever you think it says, it doesn't.
Synchronic dating and 39 other methods date the Earth and the universe as old. [14 some billion years for the universe and some 4 billion years for the Earth]
Carbon dating only goes back 50,000 years so don't come back with anything about that or I may die of laughter.