I understand that what is proven and what is not are the same to you.
Previously addressed. . .
It's proven that the laws of physics are proven laws. If they are immutably proven laws of energy and matter in our universe, then we can base our scientific theories on those laws. If we search for answers in accordance with those laws, we conclude that the universe is much older than 6000 years old.
You can't have 'proven laws of physics' and claim that the conclusions that are formed from using them to verify Earth's age are totally, wildly off base.
It is proven that certain isotopes decay at certain rates, thus, by studying these isotopes and their relative rates of decay we can establish when they were formed. We have established numbers for these that give us clear evidence that the Earth is older than 6000 years old.
Now, if your statement that proven laws of physics are factual and true is something you are willing to stand by, then you must also accept that the Earth is older than 6000 years old. In many forms of dating, we have based our dating of the Earth upon those very laws.
If you deny the conclusions, you deny that the laws of physics are true.
If your argument is 'those law might not have always been those laws', then you genuinely don't understand just how immutable and universal those laws are. Matter is matter. Uranium is uranium, for instance. Uranium can never not be Uranium, because if it's not Uranium, then it's something else entirely.