This is a very deep subject.
I suggest you check out www.answersingenesis.com or www.icr.org
There are lots of info/points to a young earth (the idea of a young earth is usually linked with the veracity of dating methods).
I have several books that present the “other” side (i.e. the data they never tell you about that doe not agree with old earth). There is actually more data that points to a young earth than an old earth.
A lot of people think this is settled science, but it’s not. Neither is the method of the formation of the universe, the “particle” or physical method gravity uses, or where is the majority (apparently) of mass in the universe. (Dark Matter).
Of course, I will get deluged with “experts” who are confident they are right, but I want to point out that science texts older than a few years are outdated for a reason -— they “answers” keep changing (I mean, those “answers” that are not proven, are only theory). All the topics I have mentioned so far have THEORIES of formation, not facts. To be science we must
1) Observable
2) Repeatable
Note that topics like the distant age of the universe, formation, etc are therefore not open to “know” an answer, as they are neither observable nor repeatable.
Such topics ARE open to Theory. Unfortunately, modern science has devolved into a jobs/political program.
Why would a website have the real answer?
I would recommend http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html instead, seeing as it is based on science rather than mythology.
Except where there is a (non-government funded) profit to be made. Then we work with what works and don't with what doesn't. Anything used solely for the formulation of political policy is suspect, as ulterior motives abound.