I really don't want to get into a evo-crevo debate and I won't, BUT there is nothing absurd about a "young-earth". God put Adam on the earth as a fully grown man, not an infant. He created the earth as a fully grown object as well, which is now at its x-thousand year birthday.
Interesting though that He found it necessary to include evidence of a billion+ year-old collision between continents when it was completely unecessary...
If the earth was made with the appearance of several billion years of age, doesn't that still mean that assuming the conventional geological concept of a multi-billion-year-old earth is the only good scientific theory for producing results?
How would you potentially falsify a theory in which the earth & universe was created with the mere appearance of age? You can't - that's why young-earth-creationism of this sort is not science.
In fact, the world was created at 1723 UTC last Thursday, with a complete set of physical traces and memories of (apparent) events prior to that time.
My theory makes as much sense as yours.
God didn't just form a fully mature man, he formed a perfect and brand new man straight from dirt, unburdened and unscarred by the wear & tear of life, and free of any damage or afflictions.
Comparing the Earth to Adam would work only if Adam were created as a 55 year old with aches, pains, scars, sun & age damaged skin, and wrinkles. As-now, saying that God created the Earth, with all its volcanic activity/craters/erosion as-is is no different and no less deceptive than a God that would create the Earth with fossils already in the ground just to test faith.