Why do you put so much stock in arguments about Charles Darwin? "Old Earth" theories originated in geology, and predate Dawrin by several decades.
What evidence can you present that Albert Einstein disagreed with the geologists and nuclear physicists about the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating?
Radiometric dating provides an apparent age. There are many other methods which show a much younger model of both earth and universe. Also Albert Einstein paved the way for merging the YEC and OEC age estimates with time dilation. As much time as you spend on these creation/evolution postings, I would expect that you have already read most of this previously.
But have you bothered to use the search engines to look at anything more in-depth or just dismiss these postings immediately out-of-hand b/c it best fits your modus operandi?
Lastly, the best explanation I’ve yet heard explains how the 6-day creation merged w/ current starlight research and big bang theories for space and time might have been:
day 1 = 8 billion years of apparent universe aging
day 2 = 4 billion
day 3 = 2 billion
day 4 = 1 billion
day 5 = 1/2 billion
day 6 = 1/4 billion
1st week = apparent age of universe at 15.75 billion and for obvious reasons lesser apparent ages for the earth - things that make you go hmmm...
You do agree w/ the research that shows the universe is expanding don’t you? Why then do you refuse to expand your mind by considering all the theories and data? What is invested in it for you that OEC and Darwin should be the only possible explanation?