Whos to say the earth isn't 6000 years old? Theoretical Science is always proving itself wrong. It's debatable. You know scientific theory is just that, a theory.
And with painfully ignorant opinions such as that, you STILL want to be taken more seriously than the "Wicca is a stone age religion"-fluff bunnies?
Good luck with that. You'll need it.
This isn't the topic of this thread, but let me try to clear up all the misconceptions and nonsensical assumptions you managed to cram into four little sentences.
1. "Who's to say the earth [is no more than] 6000 years old?"
Every single piece of evidence ever discovered. No, seriously, it's not just radiometric dating, or tree rings, or ice cores, or any other of the many, MANY facts that point to a significantly older planet: it's ALL of them, and those that can be used to actually pinpoint the age of the planet always point to the same result. The Earth is 4,54 billion years old, give or take 0.05 billion years.
So, with all the facts pointing to this, what do you have to offer? Personal opinion and an anthology written during the iron age? Yeah, right.
2. "Theoretical Science is always proving itself wrong."
And that is one of science's STRENGTHS, not a weakness. It's unfalsifiable beliefs that boil down to nothing but opinion. Aside from that, it's only in the thoroughly arcane regions of theoretical physics that you'll still find the kind of fundamental overhaul that topples entire models. And even there, it's mostly just a question of replacing a somewhat good predictive model with an even better one. Remember when Einstein overhauled Newton with his general theory of relativity? Newton's equations will still give you pretty accurate results, most of the time - it's just when you come to truly large numbers such as the speed of light that you'll end up with significant discrepancies between Newtonian models and reality.
3. "You know scientific theory is just that, a theory."
In scientific parlance, "theory" denotes a hypothesis that has already been repeatedly proven to be pretty accurate. It's the virtual opposite of blind speculation. So no, it's not "just a theory" in the sense that you are using that term.