Radiometric dating disproved
Lyell was told that large chunks of limestone would regularly break off and fall into the gorge.
He could see how cracks in the limestone would fill with water.
Lyell ignored the reports from Mr Blackwell that residents had observed the Falls recede by more than one metre (three feet) a year.
At that rate the gorge would be less than 12,000 years old, which was in the ballpark of the biblical chronology, given the uncertainties in the estimates.
Since the gorge was 35,000 feet long, he concluded that it must be 35,000 years old!
The old adage of ‘never let the facts spoil a good theory’ seems to apply here.Since Lyell was a respected English gentleman, most people blindly accepted his estimate.They readily understood how water erodes rock, and this made Lyell’s report all the more believable.And Lyell saw the Bible as the major obstacle to the general acceptance of his geological theories. Later analysis of eyewitness reports from 1842 to 1927 confirmed the high rate of erosion—1.2 to 1.5 metres (four to five feet) a year. However, we now know the gorge eroded even faster than this, so this age is still too high (see Erosion at Niagra Falls supports the biblical time-scale below).Unlike historical dating, which depends on direct observation, all ‘scientific’ dating methods rely on assumptions about what happened in the past.