Rocks are dated by the fossil record, and the fossil record dated by the rocks in which they occur.
No, they are not. Radiometric dating is usually done on igneous rock. It does does not depend, at all, on fossils. On the other hand, fossils usually occur in sedimentary rock. The dates of fossils are determine by the ages of the rocks in igneous rock above and below them in strata. Further, the most common dating methods use isochrons, which are able to determine if there is signfiicant changes in the rocks or if they have undergone events that would affect dating accuracy.
Ignoring for a moment that there are other methods of dating, imagine the sort of mistakes that could occur in a discipline which has no problem using circular logic to arrive at their conclusions.
So you believe that an entire scientific discipline has failed to realize that it was based on circular logic and then failed yourself to even take a cursory glance at how the scientific discipline works? Your premise that it is based on circular logic is so far from reality that I can only conclude that you are willfully ignorant of how radiometic dating works. It would take, I swear, less than an hour or two to learn enough about radiometric dating to have a pretty good grasp of the underlying concepts, how they are implemented in practice, and then read and understand an isochron.
While I find the prospect of a 6,000 year old Earth a bit implausible, I have only slightly more confidence in the ability of science to determine the Earth's age in an accurate manner. I might be willing to die for my faith, but I wouldn't bet anything more than a dollar on the age off the Earth.
Then, sir, you are deluded. We are not arguing over a small amount of difference. We're disagreeing about 6 orders of magnitude; that the Earth is anywhere close to 6000 years old is farcical.