To your first point: in addition to my point regarding science having had different ages for the earth, I am not a young earthen myself but I did read an article by a Jewish physicist, I think his name was Schroeder, who argued for a six day creation, or at least the appearance of it, based on the idea that time is relative and as you move close to the speed of light if you could look back into the universe time would seem to be moving at different rates. In other words the perception of time depended on where you are in the space-time continuum. I have no opinion on it as I found the article difficult to follow. But scientists themselves clearly have had different ideas of the age of the Universe and they keep changing. And as Genesis is worded in a way that permits different understandings its not an area where I would have serious arguments with those whose core beliefs on Jesus are the same as mine.
Secondly, In my experience, one side of my family is Roman Catholic, Roman Catholics usually don't know their Bible or the way to read it or the evidence for its truth. Their understanding is usually from the priest.
As to where the earth or Universe, either young or old, comes from seems to be an open question. But my thoughts on it follow.
Once upon a time, thousands of years ago, the cleverest people believed that matter, energy, space, time and the rules governing their relationships, that is the material universe, had always existed. This view was also dominant amongst many scientists until recently. In the last century this position has become difficult to maintain. New discoveries of science have changed this: the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background radiation, which helped establish the Big Bang theory of cosmology ,the expanding Universe, Einstein’s theory of General relativity theory, even Stephen Hawkins’ findings, It now seems as though science is claiming that the whole material universe and the rules governing it had a beginning. But if it had a beginning is it too much to imply that once no matter, energy, space, time or scientific laws existed, In normal speech, there was nothing?
How then did the material universe happen? Science only deals with matter, energy, space, time and their laws. All its instruments and subject matter belong to that universe. So by its very nature science would seem incapable of seeing where this universe came from. Is that a reasonable supposition or has science been able to identify things that do not belong to any of these categories? Science may have found one. In the first micro-seconds of existence, wherever it came from, the initial rules and conditions that science has identified are incredibly unlikely, as chance events, but seem to be necessary for life and intelligence to be as it is now. This is extremely fortunate as otherwise a universe might exist but there would be no intelligence to recognize it. If there are any other things not belonging to the material universe, as a I am not a scientist, I wouldn’t know of them. So, if nothing else fits, science seems to say the universe came from nothing and the initial conditions are set by chance and by nothing. The usual word for something coming into existence from nothing is creation. Unless science has something else to say, it follows that Nothing is the name given by scientists for the name of the creator. That's not very inspiring. So other people, who think respect is due to the source of everything, give that creator other more respectful names!
All this obscure and ponderous reasoning was once better expressed by someone years ago when he said somewhere in simple yet deep language: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.