against my better advice, i know ...
ASH1111, the understanding we have of the universe now isn't something that has just been dictated. It's actually the cumulative knowledge we've gained from thousands of years of asking and answering difficult questions.
If you are going to believe in the biblical model you can't just say "the bible says", you actually have to answer those same difficult questions in a way that fits your model.
For example, we know the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Experiments have proven it repeatedly, and the theories of both special and general relativity require it to be constant. No experiment has ever been able to throw doubt on either theory.
Moving on then... we can probably agree that the speed of light is a constant.
In 1909 an astronomer noted that something called "redshift" occurs in other galaxies. Redshift is a form of doppler effect, wherein the waves of something moving towards you get squished together, while the waves of something moving away get stretched out. You hear it with sound waves when a car goes past.
A later astronomer, Hubble, noted that all galaxies have redshift. This means they're moving away from us. He surmised that in fact all galaxies are separating, and that space itself is expanding. How do you explain this phenomenon? Knowing as much as we do about light and how it works, do you think this is explainable any other way?
Taking that understanding, scientists began working backwards. The amount of redshift was calculable, that means the rate of expansion is calculable too. And if you extend that rate back? You get close to fourteen billion years to get to a point where it's... a point.
Other scientists came up with theories to prove or disprove this possibility. It was radical at the time, everyone just assumed the universe always was and always would be. No one successfully disproved it. But people were able to model the "big bang" as it became called, and the model predicted a form of radiation would still persist in the universe, like the "echo" of the big bang. That echo is a "black body spectrum" of a very specific nature. It's basically a graph.
In the 70s, some researchers were trying to do some experiments with radio wave measurement from weather balloons. No matter what they did there was some interference from a source. They could not account for it in all of their testing and research. They had stumbled on it - the radioactive echo of the big bang. The black body profile matched exactly. How do YOU account for this "buzz", known as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation? What does the bible say about it?
We know how atoms work. We have something called the "Standard Model", which explains the workings of matter and energy to such a degree that it's obviously outright correct. It's made predictions (such as the Higgs Boson most recently, but many others previously) and they've always been borne out. So we know all this. We use the knowledge to build all sorts of things. We use the knowledge we have to create bombs of unthinkable power. We use the knowledge to treat people who have cancer and other diseases. We even use it to create clocks so accurate we can measure how much gravity distorts time itself.
Are you actually telling me that you think we don't understand this principle well enough to classify rocks? And more particularly, are you actually telling me that you're discarding (only) that aspect of this knowledge because it conflicts with the "science" in a 3000+ year old religious book?
Even aside from the billions of years of time, 6000 years is stunningly unsupportable. There is a single tree that's 9550 years old.
You can determine from its rings when there were good years, years with a large volcano, years with drought, etc, and then cross reference them to get a remarkably good picture of life and time.
Lots of things work like that. There are areas of sedimentary rock, for example, where seasonal thaws and freeze cycles change the deposited materials, forming clear bands of colour for every year. These bands are called "varves". Varves can be traced clearly back for around 52,000 years. Ice does the same thing. Deposited ice forms clear layers annually. These lines can be used to determine lots of fun things, like carbon levels, oxygen, pollen counts.. but more relevantly, you can just count them. There's one single ice core that goes back through 800,000 years of history.
Basically, if you want to present your view as legitimate in any sense you need to explain all of this stuff. You need to undo our understanding of nuclear physics, geography, genetics and geology. You need to provide a better answer, a better explanation for things like the CMBR.
But more than that.. you need to provide a reason why God created a world in 6 days, but then created it in such a way that it looks like it was created billions of years ago. You need to explain why there are stars we can see that are billions of light years away. That God created them with light on their way to us, almost ready to hit us, is I suppose possible. But it seems absurd.
You also need to explain why to give us somewhere to worship him, God chose to create a universe 98 billion light years across, containing roughly 1024 stars in 200 billion galaxies. Why he chose to make black holes, pulsars, magnetars, white dwarfs and supernova...
Also, you need to explain (just because I've always wondered) why it took the same amount of time to create all of that, every swirling galaxy, colliding star, gas nebula and supermassive black hole, as it did to make fish and birds.
"Creation Science" is an industry and an agenda. They are lying. It's that simple. There's no possibility that they haven't been corrected on outright factual errors and yet they keep repeating the same nonsense. I see it all over Answers in Genesis. Lies about "space dust on the moon" or "rapid fossilisation" or the Grand Canyon. These things are easily debunked, and have been so many times.
This isn't just a matter of interpretation or worldview. The facts when viewed objectively have lead to a conclusion.
TL;DR ****, man, read a science book or something.