Omphalism is the claim that the universe is not as old as the empirical evidence dictates because it was created fully formed with the appearance of age. It is also known as Last Thursdayism. But the concept is equally (in)valid for any conceivable time in the past.
It could be the case that we were all magicked into existence only moments ago with full living memory of our existence prior to that point. Along with empirical evidence of a planet and indeed a universe that is billions of years old.
The reason I bring this up is because omphalism seems to have a certain hold over people who are otherwise fully functioning members of the pro-science contingent. Those who are happy to expound the virtues of empirical evidence with regard to the age of the Earth and universe in conversations with Young Earth Creationists (YEC's) suddenly become all coy about how old they believe the Earth is in conversations about omphalism. Rather than evaluate omphalistic claims in the context of what they have clearly stated they believe about the empirical conclusions with regard to these matters they instead suddenly profess agnosticism.
History suggests that omphalism is a creationist invention deployed to deny the validity of empirical evidence. But even putting that aside.........
Is it reasonable for those who repeatedly claim confidence and validity in the empirical conclusion that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old to also hold an agnostic position with regard to the non-empirical (indeed I would say anti-empirical) conclusion that the universe could have been created less than 10,000 years ago? Or indeed even last Thursday.
And by agnosticism I don't mean lack of absolute certainty. But I guess we can come to that if promoted.
This is an "Is it Science" topic. If promoted.