A few issues about your new link. There's a link on that very same page which links to a story about the eastern part of the Grand Canyon being older than previously thought (dating it to 55 million years plus). Yours discussed the western part. The picture here is clearly a complicated one, and it looks like parts of the canyon probably formed at different times. The methods of dating used, such as cosmogenic (in the story you linked to) and radiometric (in the other story) are well established and indicate that one simple blanket explanation for the formation of the canyon is incorrect.

There's a bit of a problem here for YECs though. The first story says that "geological infant" means 700,000 years. Are you willing to take this on board? It also talks about an increased volume for the Colorado River -- not evidence of a flood that covered the entire area. Are you also willing to take this on board?