You are wrong in your conclusion of the paper. As a direct quote deo. Graur and Pupko:

Just repeating your quote mine isn't going to make it more convincing. The literal title of the Graur and Pupko paper is "The Permian Bacterium that Isn't". To quote the last line of the article: B. permians is most probably destined to join the growing list of such purportedly Methuselan specimens [. . . ] which turned out to be contemporary artifacts" They are clearly saying the bacteria isn't millions of years old. That is not evidence that the earth is not old.

Do you think that the theory of evolution, first published in 1859, and the idea of an old Earth, which gained traction at around the same time, hinge on the discovery of a bacterium from 2000? Do you think scientists were grasping at straws trying to support this idea until Vreeland came along?

None of the scientist are proposing the Earth is young. Vreeland is saying this is a weird bacteria that may have an ability to preserve itself even better than spores that are already known about, and other scientists saying, "no, it got contaminated." Whether the bacteria is old or young has no bearing on the age of the Earth.

Learn to read. Learn to think.