What I found was that not one person was able to refute any of the evidences for an old earth and nobody was able present any valid evidence for a young earth.
I'm trying to be objective here, so if you disagree with what I've said, above, please let me know. Given the opportunity, not one person was able to make a basic case as to why people should consider a young earth over an old one.
Now, if the earth really were young, don't you think it would be the other way around?
I hear a lot of creationists talking about design and 'fine-tuning' these days, which I find ironic. Almost all of the derived values for universal constants and laws have been found through the process of methodological naturalism, the same process that tells us that the world is very old. Now, if you want to claim that the universe is 'fine-tuned' for life (us) then you have to acknowledge that the information you're basing this on is correct, right? Well, that information is how we know that the world is ancient. So you have two choices;
Either you accept that the universe is almost 14 billion years old and that the science that tells us this also provides data that you consider to be evidence of 'fine-tuning' (presumably by a Designer),
Or, you disregard the scientific age of the universe and all the associated data that goes with it and cling to you belief that the world was specially created, in the recent past, by way of a process that we can never understand through science (ie, chaos)
It's your choice.