Radioactive dating of meteorites online dating services heyburn idaho
A bulk of the Answers Research Journal article consists of unnecessary background information and tedious petrological descriptions of the meteorite samples.
These sections are inconsequential to Snelling's main thesis, that despite the overwhelming consistency and precision of radiometric dates (all pointing to an age of 4.56 Ga), he still won't accept that this one meteorite, let alone the universe, is much older than 6,000 years.
In conventional science, the existence and relative abundances of isotopes are readily predicted by models of solar evolution, because stars produce elements with varying numbers of protons and neutrons by combining lighter elements of varying masses.
It makes sense within this paradigm that isotopes exist in the first place, and by using isotopes as tracers for natural processes, we've made sense of the history of the universe.
Any answer to this question by YECs will be entirely arbitrary, rendering Snelling's model of meteorite isotope systematics even more absurd.
Meteorite isochron ages using the Al-Mg, Hf-W, Mn-Cr, and I-Xe systems Snelling makes an odd statement amid his discussion regarding the calibration of isochron ages to the Pb-Pb system (forgive the long citation): "The other “successful” radioisotope methods are not really independent and thus objective, because they are calibrated against the Pb-Pb method (see table 1) and therefore are automatically guaranteed to give ages identical to those obtained by the Pb-Pb isochron method.
If we apply Snelling's model to explain the radiochemistry of meteorites, then we must assume that the primordial creation material from which God made the meteorites/planets contained just the right proportion of isotopes so that after x amount of accelerated nuclear decay, all systems appeared to have aged precisely 4.56 billion years.
You need only reference Occam's Razor to understand why Snelling's conjecture is and will remain ad hoc conjecture.Why should all six isotope systems yield the same age if it is not real?That is the pressing question, which Snelling cannot answer, so he glosses over it with filler descriptions of the samples and discussions of Hebrew verbs.After years of sorting through the results of radiometric dates, all placing the age of our Earth and Solar System at ~4.56 billion years, Andrew Snelling has essentially conceded that he cannot twist isochron ages of meteorites and bulk-Earth materials into supporting his already disproven conjectures regarding accelerated nuclear decay.If you're not familiar with this claim already, Andrew Snelling and colleagues in the RATE team have decided to brush away the overwhelming evidence of an old Earth from geochronology by suggesting that at several points in Earth's 6,000-year history, rates of nuclear decay increased by a million times or more, leaving us with the false impression that geological history spans millions to billions of years instead.
We need a new category to account for the level of deception employed by Andrew Snelling's latest 'research' report. Isotopes are not necessary to maintain life, either of plants/animals or the solar system itself.