LindaLou, here's a prediction ...

Quote
A few issues about your new link. There's a link on that very same page which links to a story about the eastern part of the Grand Canyon being older than previously thought (dating it to 55 million years plus). Yours discussed the western part. The picture here is clearly a complicated one, and it looks like parts of the canyon probably formed at different times.
You win that bet, according to Grand Canyon Dating Undercuts Creationism an accessible article that refers to a recent study published in Science (Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleothems)
Quote
Before their work, geologists had a pretty good idea of how and when the Grand Canyon formed. But they were unable to determine the rate of erosion beyond the last million years. The new paper applies recent advances in uranium-lead dating methods to a very old idea — that cave deposits could be used to date the vertical erosion of the canyon at any level, at any point along its length.

It turns out that the Grand Canyon is really two canyons, an older one to the west and a younger one to the east. The western canyon began to form about 20 million years ago by the progressive erosion of a small river system toward its head. This erosion took place at an average rate of about one-quarter of one-thousandth of a foot per year. In the eastern canyon, the rate of erosion is double that rate, and didn't begin in earnest until about 4 million years ago. This was shortly after the eastern and western watersheds merged to become a through-going river.
Note in particular that the rate of erosion - even in the "accelerated" section - is too slow for any flood model, but fits the normal geological model just fine.

Quote
The first story says that "geological infant" means 700,000 years. Are you willing to take this on board?
Probably not, as the typical creationist misrepresentation is to throw up all kind of different dates so that the readers get the impression that geologists are just making it up as they go along. The more different dates they can quote from geologists the better (just don't include where they explain the differences eh?) Some reasons that creationists are always mentioning volcanic rock (lava) dates are (1) because then they can get a bunch of different dates from them and the surrounding rocks, and (2) fresh lava can pick up and carry chunks of old rock, which are called inclusions, and dating these shows the lava to be too old (except they are not dating the lava).

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
... by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
- to learn - to think - to live - to laugh
... to share.