It’s been taken as both. Star seeding I have heard as used as a term for earth life started by intelligent aliens. And the lines were given as a way for us to know.
But evidence of intelligent aliens could be a counter theory to a old earth, and certainly throws natural evolution for a loop.
I would not doubt that there are young earthers who accept evolution. In my experience there’s ALL sorts of creationists out there.
Nascar lines? Were there big ovals laid out in Peru?
The OP’s question seems to be meaningless, or using the no true Scotsman argument, because to believe in evolution as the OP is defining it you have to believe in the time frame that it requires. If you believe in both you don’t understand evolution and don’t qualify.
Again the concept (and potential evidence) of star seeding does allow (but doesn’t mandate) both evolution (on another planet) and a young earth.
The lines are much too young to show any such thing. The alien theory is insulting to the natives, btw, since they were plenty smart enough to lay them out without aerial help. For purposes of illumination only, since this is GQ, why would evidence of visits by intelligent aliens be a counter theory to an old earth? And, given our clear genetic ties to the rest of life, why would seeding of life a billion years ago or so say anything about evolution?
Not at all. No advertising labels on any of them, so they can’t be Nascar.
==Shakes fist== Damn you beat me to it by 7 minutes !!! 
How can the earth be millions of years old when the Ayers Rock is at least 500 millions years old?
Why is it insulting, non-creation by natives lines don’t negate any of their capabilities (you are using a false argument) - if they didn’t do it they didn’t do it. I regard them very highly and more advanced then modern society in terms of medicine alone.
I have heard a theory that Noah’s Ark was a starship, moving those people and animals to a new planet with the help of aliens. This helps explain the newness of the lines as well
The concept that life wasn’t seeded as a single simple organism but the diversity was seeded all together.
Ah, kanicbird. You never disappoint. 
Quoth njtt:
Indeed, as recently as a couple of decades ago, the best estimates of the ages of the oldest stars was larger than the best estimates of the age of the entire Universe. Everyone knew, of course, that both of these were only estimates, and that there was obviously some minor problem with at least one of those two estimates (though of course, practitioners of either field generally thought the flaw lay with the other). And the difference wasn’t all that great, in any event.
Quite so, but I was talking about the mid 19th century in the passage you quote, by which time the work of Lyell (and others) had shown the Earth to be very much older than that. My point was that geologists and evolutionary biologists in the 19th century were not too worried about the fact that no-one then had a decent account of the age of the sun (as you originally claimed).
I do not know whether the OP had an age of something like 20 million years in mind when he asked about it being “significantly younger.” Frankly I doubt it, because the context of his curiosity seems to be the question of Young Earth Creationism, but yes, if you read his question literally I suppose Erasmus Darwin (or Lamark) would be an example. As I said in my original post (agreeing with you):
The OP also uses the present tense - since Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck have both been dead for over 150 years, I’m not sure they qualify.
Good post. And this conclusion. Wow. I had always seen the three as correlated, but you make a good case for causation. Thank you.
Probably not. Friends with James Hutton, he was abreast of the best geological theorising of the day. He never seems to have committed himself to an age of the Earth and, had he been forced to do so, he’d have probably nominated one ridiculously short by 21st century standards, but the sense of an effectively boundless past is present in his writings. While he never said anything explicit, his opponents recognised this and duly accused him of denying Genesis.
Regarding the 19th century debate on the ages of the Earth and Sun, I’ve probably made the observation on the Dope before that the best known exponent at the time of putting physical limits on those didn’t thereby necessarily rule out evolution (though he was never keen on natural selection). Lord Kelvin was quite prepared to speculate that the age of the universe was near-indefinite, even if that of the Earth was relatively short, with relatively advanced lifeforms then arriving on the latter via some form of panspermia.
I’d agree with Meatros that there is no doubt someone currently out there who fits whatever combination of beliefs you might specify. There really ain’t nowt so queer as folk.
Heretic! Everyone knows the world was created last Tuesday.