Earth science relative dating circular reasoning of carbon dating
The geological relationships of the various formations are quite clear.The lava flows which spill into the canyon must be younger than the canyon.Further, there is no material in Austin's book which legitimizes the false and misleading claims in his articles (which are free and available online) receive much wider distribution than Austin's book (which costs ).Dating is a technique used in archeology to ascertain the age of artifacts, fossils and other items considered to be valuable by archeologists.
The Cenozoic flows sampled by ICR thus are claimed to yield an age which is about 200 million years older than the Cardenas Basalt.
The attempt to abuse the meaning of a single contrived date -- which was produced only by a sample selection geared to dating a different event, and only for samples whose results were known by Austin in advance -- says a lot more about the level of competence or honesty in this creation "science" research program, than it says about the validity of isochron dating methods.
Even if given credit for discovering this case (which he clearly doesn't deserve, as his use of Leeman's data proves), Austin has only managed to "call into question" a particular sampling technique.
The ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project does not strike a telling blow against the reliability of isochron dating.
The conditions which caused the "false isochron" in this case are fairly well-understood, and easy to avoid by proper sample selection.
Since I couldn't get permission to reproduce the claims verbatim, I will summarize the creationist claims, and respond to them here.