I agree with you 100%. And, furthermore, it is disingenuous to engage in a supposed evidence-based discussion and continually deflect, rather than engaging. When a body of evidence (as with the Hawaii example) is presented, it is not one, single bit of evidence that points to an old earth. Rather it is hundreds of disparate bits of data (from several different domains) that are not only correlated to one another to show that the earth is clearly old, but also that do not, in any way allow that the earth is young.
What’s the response? “Oh, I’ve heard that one before. Is that all you have?” Or, “I simply don’t believe that science has solved all of the problems and so the jury is still out.” Every bit of “all we have” points to an old earth, and, NO, science will never have everything sorted out. So, does it make sense to step into an airliner, or will it simply fall from the sky? It surely doesn’t look flight-worthy. Has science sorted this out? Yes, there are tens of thousands of successful flights each day, but maybe they are all outliers? Maybe I should wait to be sure.
In 2,000 years since Christ, have theologians sorted it all out? Maybe we should wait to see what we believe. We certainly don’t want to commit before all of the evidence has been weighed.