Meteor samples do consistently date near 4.6 billion..... but that consistently is inconsistent with multiple other lines of evidence. When we start with the inerrant truth of God's Word, rather than secular contradictory opinions, we can start trying to understand the world around us.
If anyone interested on the 4.6 billion year meteorites.....
Radioisotope Dating of Meteorites: V. Isochron Ages of Groups of Meteorites
https://answersingenesis.org/astron...meteorites-v-isochron-ages-groups-meteorites/
Part of the conclusion... " further studies are required to attempt to systematize what proportions of the isotopes in each radioisotope dating system measured today are due to inheritance from the “primordial material,” to accelerated radioisotope decay during the Flood, and mixing, additions and subtractions in the earth’s mantle and crust through earth history, particularly during the Day Three Great Upheaval and then subsequently during the Flood."
I rather like this article from Snelling that 6days links to. Based on my brief experience with 6days, I am quite certain he has little to no technical understanding of what this article says, but instead found the brief part in the conclusion that sounded like it supported creationist ideas. Likewise, when the vast majority of the creationist readers at AIG read this article, their eyes glaze over, and they search until, like 6days, they see something that sounds profound that might support their position.
Let me walk through the abstract that Snelling gives, and try to put it in simpler terms for the non-scientists. I will highlight the more salient points in his abstract, and include relevant extracts from the body of the study as needed.
Abstract
Meteorites date the earth with a 4.55 ± 0.07 Ga Pb-Pb isochron called the geochron.
(Ga is shorthand for "billions of years of age)
Here in the first line of the abstract Snelling mentions a special type of radiometric dating that sidesteps most of the silly claims that scientists are too dense to consider how much daughter isotope was initially present. Here is the crux of what Wiki says on isochron dating:
<From Wiki:> Isochron dating is a common technique of radiometric dating and is applied to date certain events, such as crystallization, metamorphism, shock events, and differentiation of precursor melts, in the history of rocks. Isochron dating can be further separated into mineral isochron dating and whole rock isochron dating; both techniques are applied frequently to date terrestrial and also extraterrestrial rocks (meteorites). The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions are needed about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence. Indeed, the initial amount of the daughter product can be determined using isochron dating.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating>
As I read the next several sentences in Snelling’s abstract, I was pleasantly surprised to see his candor in acknowledging much of what mainstream science has been saying for decades (and which has largely been opposed by ill-informed creationists).
<continuing with abstract:>They appear to consistently yield 4.55–4.57 Ga radioisotope ages, adding to the uniformitarians’ confidence in the radioisotope dating methods.
Snelling is simply acknowledging that the supporting data is there, like it or not. Isochron dating has firmly established a 4.5 Ga age for the solar system.
Many radioisotope dating studies of groups of asteroidal meteorites (chondrites, stony achondrites, pallasites and mesosiderites, and irons) in the last six decades have used the Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, U-Th-Pb, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, Mn-Cr, and Hf-W methods to yield many isochron ages of groups of these meteorites from whole-rock samples, and mineral and other fractions. Such age data for groups of these meteorites were tabulated and plotted on frequency versus age histogram diagrams. They strongly cluster in the groups of chondrites, stony achondrites, and irons at 4.55–4.57 Ga, dominated by Pb-Pb, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb calibrated isochron ages, testimony to the Pb-Pb technique’s supremacy as the uniformitarians’ ultimate dating tool, which they consider very reliable.
Yet another confirmation that the data shows a 4.5 Ga for the solar system
These ages are often confirmed by Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, and Sm-Nd isochron ages, but agreement could be due to calibration with the Pb-Pb system.
He acknowledges even more data confirming the age of the solar system.
There is also scattering of many Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, Sm-Nd isochron ages, and a few Pb-Pb isochron ages, in most cases likely due to thermal disturbances resulting from impact cratering of the parent asteroids.
He acknowledges the data scattering he mentions here is likely due to “thermal disturbances resulting from impact cratering”. This is a case where direct radioactive decay dating would be not be dependable, but isochron dating is ideal for this situation.
Up to here, he has been pretty forthright in admitting that the dating of a variety of primordial materials by a variety of methods has uniformly pointed towards a 4.5 Ga age for the solar system. But these are pretty clearly not ages that creationists accept. So now, he does the creationist soft-shoe away from science and into religion. He makes this very explicit within the body of his study, when he says:
Any postulated naturalistic or uniformitarian history for the formation of the parent asteroids of these meteorites, and of course for the solar system itself, is completely invalidated by the divinely provided account of the six normal days of God creating supernaturally during the Creation Week.
From here on out, now that the wolf has discarded his sheep’s clothing, he must be using some aberrant laws of physics to explain how hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay actually occur within just the Biblical global flood year.
Returning to the abstract:
No pattern was found in the isochron ages for these groups of meteorites similar to the systematic patterns of isochron ages found in Precambrian rock units during the RATE project, so there is no evidence of past accelerated radioisotope decay having occurred in these meteorites, and therefore on their parent asteroids. This is not as expected, yet it is the same for all meteorites so far studied. Thus it is argued that accelerated radioisotope decay must have only occurred on the earth, and only the 500–600 million years’ worth we have physical evidence for during the Flood. Otherwise, due to their 4.55–4.57 Ga “ages” these meteorites and their parent asteroids are regarded as originally representing “primordial material” that God made on Day One of the Creation Week, from which He made the non-earth portion of the solar system on Day Four, which is compatible with the Hebrew text of Genesis. Thus today’s measured radioisotope compositions of these meteorites could reflect a geochemical signature of that “primordial material,” which included atoms of all elemental isotopes. So if some or most of the measured daughter isotopes were already in these meteorites when they were formed on their parent asteroids, then their 4.55–4.57 Ga “ages” obtained by Pb-Pb, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb calibrated isochron age dating are likely not their true real-time ages, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years.
His final sentence in his abstract keeps the door open just a crack, in case studies of rocks on other bodies in the solar system don’t confirm his claims:
It is anticipated that further investigation of radioisotope ages data for Martian and lunar meteorites, for lunar rocks, and for rocks from every level in the earth’s geologic record, should enable these interim ideas to be further confirmed or modified.
This study is a classic case of the 6day’s approach to science – no matter how convincing the science is, no matter how much confirming data has been collected – when it doesn’t fit what you want to believe, trash it and just mindlessly resort to the chant “God’s Word says otherwise”, God’s Word says otherwise” , “God’s Word ,,,
