I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[Esquilax]

No, but some of the differences are two billion years. I don't consider that early on something that's 4.5 billion years old.

Then isn't it lucky that you aren't the arbiter of either the term, nor the impacts on the moon?

Because, to be clear, you're arguing definitions again, and not the science: whether or not this classifies as early, the fact that it measures the last impact and not the age of the rock isn't in doubt. All this means is that the last impact was two billion years after the rock was formed. That's just what happened, and focusing in on the wording in a sentence will not change the actual physical process behind the science.

It might come as a shock to you John, but the moon doesn't care what you think of it.

First, sure, I'd give you 450 million as "early", as that's about 10% of total life.

I wasn't aware that I needed to haggle: the scientists said something, and little old not-scientist John disagrees because he doesn't like the use of the word "early."

I wonder who I should believe?

Second, notice what the link says by the picture of lunar craters: "The large number of craters in this region indicates that this part of the Moon is quite ancient."

Red herring: the actual physical observation of the craters does indicate that the area of the moon is old. Why? Because it has existed for longer, to present a target for impacts to occur on.

Does this change the fact that K-Ar dating measures the impacts and not the age of the rock? Why no, no it doesn't!