Um, you've tried to point it out, but every single piece of evidence you've used to support your claims has been shot down in flames.
And that article states that it will happen when the Earth is 6000 years old. Given that you've never been able to show that the earth is this old (you've merely claimed it and given no substantial evidence to back up your claims), this new claim means nothing. Any claim based on false premises is a false claim.
And is it just me, or is that whole thing based on a big "IF"? It's an assumption, as well as based off a false premise.
And what's all this about some of these things being 7, others being 70, others being 700 and others being 7000? I mean, sure, it's only out by an order of magnitude, but only if you are using the base 10 counting system. isn't it lucky that we chose the counting system that would tie in with God's plan? Imagine the confusion if we used the base 9 or base 11 system instead!
Oh, and within a couple of years of 2000, the article says? Hate to break it to you, but we're rapidly approaching a DECADE since that happened, so I doubt that "give or take a few years" still applies.
And what's this nonsense about "Many astronomers and other scientists using sophisticated computer programs have calculated that the earth will be 6000 years old sometime around the year 2000"? Give me the name of ONE reputable scientist who has come to this conclusion? Site a single piece of verifiable evidence to back this up?
Care to give us something to go on that's actually concrete instead of this nonsense?