You do have to admit the world is older then 6,000 years.
Maybe it is best to look at it that the planet my be older but faith is 6,000 years old.
Why? Just because some scientists make some assumptions about how rocks were formed and some assumptions about the initial amount of isotopes contained in the rocks, and some assumptions about decay rates over history, and some assumptions about the lack of leaching of isotopes into and out of the rocks and come up with guestimate about the age of rocks?
Seriously, they weren't there, they don't really know. It's a guesstimate.
Our scientists don't have a clue how life began. They don't have a clue how Jesus walked on water. They don't know how he healed lepers. They don't know how He brought Lazarus back to life after he was dead 3 days and had begun to stink. They don't know how he could speak and stop the winds.
The fact is that God has technology that we don't have the vaguest clue about. As Author C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Our scientists try to figure stuff out within our own limited understanding.
And that's fine for them to try. But it doesn't justify me taking their hypothesis about what might have happened over the record in scripture.
That record in scripture has it's own evidence. The entire nation of Israel agreed that it was written by Moses at God's direction. That scripture contained prophecies which have come to pass. Some rather recently. It more legal evidence than scientific evidence, but evidence just the same.
Besides, if you look at human population growth rates and extrapolate that backwards, long ages aren't supported. There is no explaining humans having tool making capability yet not rising to dominate the earth over hundreds of thousands of year.
A two thousand year rise to domination, wiped out by a flood, followed by a four thousand year rise to domination seems more likely to me.