Some things needed to be created old, so they could perform functions they couldn't perform young.
Such as trees having mature fruit on them, so Adam & Eve could eat.
Fair enough. But I'm going to make an assumption here, that assumption is, that God created things with an "Embedded Age" that they really could've possessed. In other words, although created old those trees could've grown from seeds if God had so desired. There's nothing unnatural or impossible about trees growing from seeds.
But this leads us to another conclusion... if God created the universe with the appearance that it could've begun 13.7 billion years ago... it's because it really could've begun 13.7 billion years ago. God could've started it from a proverbial seed if He had so desired, just like with the trees.
And if God created life with the appearance that it could've begun 3.7 billion years ago... it's because it really could've begun 3.7 billion years ago. Evolution could've happened, even if it didn't happen, and it didn't happen simply because God chose not to begin from seeds.
So the implication is that even if God created the universe 6000 years ago, the Big Bang theory, and the Theory of Evolution may both be correct in that they both describe what
could've happened, and the only reason that they didn't happen is that God chose not to begin from seeds.
So there's nothing in Genesis that refutes the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution. Science isn't misinterpreting the evidence, because the evidence says that both life and the universe evolved. The only thing that science is missing is that God chose to begin with "Embedded Age" instead of from seeds.
But I'm still stuck with the question of why. If God could've grown the entire universe from a seed... why didn't He? Was He impatient?
I mean if I were creating a computer simulated universe I could understand skipping the first 13.7 billion years, but God's not a computer programmer, what reason did He have for skipping the first 13.7 billion years?