This water dropping into a cylinder - explanation to refute dating was quite "simple" indeed. beforehand there were others who found 2.61 and 3 mill..... at least one would then assume with some confidence it should have occured between 1 and 4 million years ago... All dating methods are based on assumptions about age, not measurements of age.Of course, the further you go back in history the greater your statistical errors will be... And you can make the result come out to anything you like depending on the assumptions that you make.They said the sample was contaminated with excess argon.
That said, there is much evicence that non-Christian scientists report that contradict the idea of long ages, althought they would not see it that way.
Also, can you identify a non Christian scientist who has provided scientific evidence for a young earth. Dear Bob, The only reliable way of knowing the age of anything is by the historical method, by eyewitnesses.
Every other method that is based on making measurements in the present amounts to, "What age would you like?
The evolutionary 'Scientific method' seems to screen out any possible variant facts as irrelevant.
With reference to the theory of evolution, "if in doubt, throw it out". ago...) (if that's the Worst example a creation-site can find to discredit these kind of measurements...
See for example 101 evidences for a young of the earth and the universe.