This planet is 4,000,000,000+ years old. Your beliefs will not change that FACT.
Facts are NORMALLY established by observation. What was the name of the individual who you would quote lived 4 billion years ago? And by the way, your beliefs WILL establish that FACT?
Radioactive decay products in different rocks. The same 'theory' that runs nuke plants and makes bombs go boom also enables one to detrmine the decay products and determine how long they were there. Based upon these observations, the age of rocks are established. Also see all the articles on the natural reactor found in Africa. This planet is very, very old and no amount of biblical literalism can erase that fact. I also speak as a christian conservative. Until you can disprove nuclear theory, you will have absolutely no basis for stating that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
and BTW....measurement error and assumptions gives an uncertainty of 10% or so. Heck even at 50% uncertainty it would still be at least 2,000,000 yrs old at minimum.
That assumes that the parameter 'time' has remained the same over time. But Einstein established that 'time' is itself an equation that depends upon the velocity of the observer relative to 'zero velocity' in the universe. We don't know how fast we're traveling through the universe relative to that 'zero velocity'. Very recent evidence suggests that expansion of the universe is SLOWING, while at the original 'big bang' creation moment, the mass that now makes of our Earth would have been moving at phenomenal speed.
Many physicists now believe that the ultimate 'end of the world' will actually be a humongous FIZZLE, with atoms ultimately moving so slowly, they will not be able to maintain their particulate integrity.
Thus, carbon dating may be subject to enormous error to an Earth-bound observer, especially during the first milliseconds of the 'big bang'.
The future with God is much brighter, so bright in fact I'm gonna need shades....
There are rocks at that 4 billion years old. We can tell because they contain various types of lead that differ in the number of neutrons they contain, of exactly the types we see from the radioactive decay or uranium, in definite amounts. This much type A, this much type B, this much type C. We know the reactions that make each from higher up the chain of elements. The ratios between them change with time, because some of the higher up items in the chains leading to those end types are more stable than others, and hold things up for some routes more than other routes, through the list of intermediate stages.
If we look at the amount of A vs the amount of B and hypothesize "this came from decay of uranium", we can calculate from the rates of decay we see, what the implied age of the sample is. But one such ratio could be just a coincidence. So we check it - what about the ratio of A to C? Gives another date. Happens to be the same date, about. OK, maybe that is a coincidence - so we check it. We look at the ratio of B to C. That gives a third date, a third age for the same sample. Bang on the other two. Every time. Rocks brought up from deep strata, off in podunk, that nobody could possibly know or care about (in Australia e.g.). 4 billion years three ways, every time.
Now, maybe that is some truly elaborately conceived initial condition put their on purpose. But it sure as heck ain't a coincidence. And what imaginable process goes out of its way to fiddle with three tuned ratios of amounts of atomic varieties of lead, differing by a few extra neutrons, buries the result under acres of rock at the ends of the earth, then goes around doing the same thing everywhere? I mean, is it supposed to be a prank of the gods, or what? Or did something rejigger the laws of physics to make radioactive decay happen differently in the past, just for kicks? Unless you think so, and there is literally no earthly reason to think so, there are rocks billions of years old.