Wrong actually. While older dating methods did have some flaws, and opened the door to "scientific non-proof" for all the creationism people, this newer one dosen't have such flaws. Isochron Dating is the proper term, and when someone from the Institue for Creation Research used it, they found some interesting results. They seem to think the Grand Canyon age issue debunks Isochron Dating, but they don't give any reason for this beyond the fact that the new data even puzzled scientists. My only idea is that since most of them believe the Earth is only thousands of years old, the 1.07 billion figure dosen't sit well with them.


Interesting. I'm going to have to read up on this. I like knowing as much as I can about both sides of an issue. Usually somewhere in the middle you can find the truth But what about the moon? If the earth and the moon are as old as we're to believe, there should of been a lot of space dust on the surface. But there were only a couple of inches.

I will admit even scientists have had a hard time with the Grand Canyon, but the dating method its self seems reliable


That's easy. Paul Bunyan made it when threw his axe into the ground