I agree with the layering, just not the interpretation of them
What is that supposed to mean? That if a geologist says this rock is olivine, and this is basalt, you don't agree with her? It's not an interpretation. It's evidence. The nature of the layers, what they contain, and their respective ages, is based on best evidence, not interpretation. This is another dishonest statement.
and the assumption that they are squillions of years old.
It's not an assumption. It's a measurement of the ratio of isotopes within a layer, and calculating how long it would have taken those materials to decay to that level of radiation. It's a fact, not an assumption. To say otherwise is dishonest. Your school is teaching that radiometrics is a lie. All the while you/they are ignoring that the radioactive content varies by layer. It has no basis in the action of water. It has a basis in the action of time. Atoms that were laid down in the more distant past have had more eons to decay into the radioactive state than younger atoms. By denying the truth if this fact, your school is propagating a lie, which is why I've said it's dishonest.
I believe in the traditional view that the earth is only six thousand years old.
Traditional to the Victorian era. Today the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth is the traditional view. You're simply hundreds of years behind the curve. You are in that miniscule 12% of respondents surveyed who say the earth is 6000 years old. Presumably none of them could pass a standardized test in math, science and history. Over billions of years the lithosphere cooled, cracked separated and shifted. It's not a rubber earth bending under water just as the sea floors are not currently bending under water. It's a lateral shift causing upheaval (mountain building).
If someone payed me to go there, I would find as much evidence in one day, to dismiss the older earth theory.
No, if you went for any purpose other than deception, you would discover the same facts everyone else discovers. The view of the canyon walls from the rim is breathtaking. The painted stripes are so uniform, and they extend as far as the eye can see. The view from aloft is as impressive. It fills up the entire window as you look out from 30,000 feet.
The overlap between Grand, Zion and Bryce Canyons proves that the global flood idea is utterly bogus. It's impossible for a flood to lay layer after layer, with fossils of successive stages of development, and then to slice these into three canyons, and then cut them with rivers. It's ludicrous. That the topmost layer of the Bryce Canyon is not laid at the top of the Grand Canyon disproves the ridiculous notion beyond a shadow of a doubt. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.
You asked about the presence of older creatures at the higher layers. If you wish to learn more about the geologic age of fossils, you should consider the diagrams that correlate the abundance of species (or genera) per era, such as the ones below. Compare the named geologic eras to the diagrammed layers of the canyons. As I said before, these are not charts to be folded up. They are the diagrams of the "big picture", taking by collating tens and hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence from all over the world. attesting to the true natural history of the Earth. To say otherwise is dishonest.
This is one kind of detail, looking only at corals. The width of the contours relates to their abundance over time:
Do you see the geologic eras represented in each of these diagrams? They are the eras found in the canyon walls from
my earlier post.
Here is a more general depiction of the relative abundance of dominant primitive fauna, grouped by class. (Porifera - sponges, cnidaria - jellies, etc. are known as Classes. It's a higher grouping than species.)
And here is a similar distribution for flora:
Call it rosed glasses if you want.
Lying about the facts to cover a silly myth is far from seeing through rose colored lenses. It's simply dishonest. The only way to treat this subject honestly is to be confronted by the facts and evidence, and to study and comprehend them. If you believe in a sacred scripture, then it can never be anything written by any man on clay or vellum. It's the infallible words of nature itself, inscribed in the canyon walls, and strewn along the alluvial fans and poking out over the clouds. What is more sacred than the truth? And then when we turn to the writings of people, if we are to stay honest, we must take care to repudiate the writings that commit heresy against nature's scripture, and we must embrace the ones that treat nature with reverence. For thus it is written: we are only recent arrivals in an extensive history of living forms on a set of shifting plates. And they are not the legs of a table that God shakes when He gets mad at us. Nor does rain fall for that reason. It never has, and it never will. Read the true scriptures, and find out for yourself how silly your myths are.