Girls were taught to read

The Smithsonian: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/

International Planetary Society: https://www.ips-planetarium.org/page/age

United States Geological Survey: https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

National Park Services: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/age-of-the-earth.htm

a response against creationism from University of Notre Dame: http://sites.nd.edu/james-applewhite/2020/03/22/age-of-our-earth/

and again, literally ANY science textbook, journal, or article explaining our current collection of scientific data, research, and findings. In fact, the only sources that consistently denied the evidence of the world's scientific community were privately-funded religious organizations and institutions, none of which provided any actual evidence to support their claims beyond the mere dismissal of everything that proves them contrary. And that is only on the age of the geological earth, not even the additional mountains of evidence supporting our current timeframe of evolution, much of which I have already provided in my other comments.

Again, I greatly recommend this video that uses science to debunk these kinds of anti-scientific claims: https://youtu.be/rIzENnMbsxA

"I just went to a conference where Dr. Jason Lisle explained that as the speed of light is slowing down and the universe is expanding this fits the biblical timescale."

First of all, you either misunderstood what he was saying, or his work is not published, BECAUSE, all our current evidence indicates that the speed of light is a universal constant. In fact, it is literally famous for being a constant (with the given variable, "c"), as it has been used for nearly all mathematical and astrological calculation since it's discovery by Einstein in 1905. The idea that the speed of light is NOT a constant is purely a theory today (not a scientific theory, but a theory that has yet to find actual evidence to support it). Scientists have been trying to find evidence to support this idea for decades now, as it would fundamentally change our current framework on time and spacial relativity, but there is still NO actual evidence yet to prove or support it. It is still just a fringe concept (mostly pushed by creationists as a possible explanation against the big bang), but so far unproven.

Secondly, the expansion of the universe is already taken into account in our current math and measurements of the universe, of which we used to arrive at our current conclusions of the almost 14 billion-year-old universe. No amount of alterations of evidence and mathematical changes can make that fit anywhere around a biblical timeline without blatantly ignoring objective evidence. That's why the entire scientific community agrees with the numbers concluded from objective evidence, while creationists have to rely on foregoing and denying evidence to make their preconceived beliefs fit the lack of data.