Earth is older then 6000 years old.

Since you forfeited, I will just continue where I left off in round two. I think I said enough about fossils and the Flood. You said "About what I said about 4.5 billion ly away stars. I said that is the furthest with the naked eye. not necessarily with the Hubble." This is also incorrect; the furthest object that can be seen with the naked eye is the Andromeda galaxy, which is ~2.5Blys away. In either case, this is irrelevant to the age of our planet. Here is Dr. Russell Humphreys response to Dr. Loechelt's claims, "In September 2008, Gary Loechelt, who has a Ph.D. in materials science and engineering, posted a two-part criticism on a "progressive creationist" website, along with a technical article which apparently has been neither peer-reviewed nor published (though perhaps rejected by a journal). His main claims were: (A) One or two percent of the helium in a zircon is not tightly bound in the crystal, but rather loosely attached in the crystal"s cracks and defects. This "loose" helium can therefore diffuse out of the zircon very easily in a laboratory measurement. (B) The loose helium, he claims, caused the laboratory measurements to make the zircons appear much more leaky than they actually are. Loechelt is right in claim (A), but wrong in claim (B). He overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement, because after the initial steps the loose helium would be gone. That is one reason diffusion experts recommend ignoring the initial steps. Our experimenter recommended that, and that is exactly what we did. Thus he felt free to tell us that the rates he measured were accurate depictions of the leakiness for the other 98% of the helium. Ironically, our expert is one of those that Loechelt cites in his section about this issue. Loechelt either completely misunderstood the experts, or he deliberately distorted their meaning. If leak rates were really much lower than measured, the past temperature history of the zircons would become much more important. That"s because colder site temperatures would make Loechelt"s low leakages even lower, giving him a chance to retain the helium for billions of years. But even on temperatures, Loechelt shows a remarkable ability to misunderstand the experts. He fails to grasp the essence of the published Los Alamos heat flow models, which is that due to nearby volcanic activity in the past they imagine, temperatures in our borehole would have been higher than today for hundreds of millennia. Instead, Loechelt insists, temperatures were always lower. But even assuming (for the sake of argument) his lower temperatures, a few hundred thousand years of the laboratory leak rates would wipe out essentially all the helium from the zircons " in contrast to the high amounts observed. That is why, in addition to assuming a cooler site, Loechelt must deny the laboratory measurements and imagine much lower leak rates. Loechelt also whacks away at some of my calculations. If he were correct, my calculations might have to be adjusted by a factor of two or so. But that would still be within the error bars of the models. Worse for him, it would still be far short of explaining the factor of 100,000 discrepancy between the uniformitarian model and experiments!" (http://creation.com...) In short, Dr. Loechelt misunderstood the experiments and made inaccurate claims against them, which is probably why his technical paper was not published in any peer-reviewed journal. Notice also that the Argon diffusion research was a separate endeavor which only served to corroborate the previous Helium diffusion results. If you're interested in challenging another point, consider also that findings of C-14 in diamonds also supports an age for the Earth much less than 4.5By (http://creation.com...)