So what if a sudden catastrophe, like a violent earthquake, caused the uplift, followed by a flood that laid the sandstone down? Seems like it could have been formed within a couple of days. Many people will say that radiometric dating proves the age, but those methods are vastly unreliable in general because they assume the starting amount of the element.<br><br>This seems more like evidence for a large catastrophe than a billion-year-old earth.,(reply>), As a geologist, I can tell you that the accepted answer is by far the most likely, based on the following evidence:<br><br>1. No single earthquake could have caused that much deformation, and we don't see any evidence of a violent earthquake here.<br>2. Between the two layers of rock there's an erosional surface, one which doesn't show evidence of a large flood.<br>3. The overlying sandstone is the wrong kind of sediments for a large flood deposit.<br>4. Geochemistry of the rocks and radiometric dating of zircons from each layer indicates a completely different source for each sediment, and confirms a huge gap in time between each one being deposited. Radiometric dating is in fact extremely reliable.,(reply>), They are merged together in a way that takes time. <br>Vague hadwaving doesn't change that.