Short answer: Such material phenomena can’t explain it. Ergo, design! Some intelligent agent must’ve laid down those elements and isotopes in exactly the correct positions to make the strata look old!
Aside: It’s a wonder Sal still isn’t a DI Fellow.
Are you saying that all lunar rocks brought back to earth by Apollo missions are actually from earth? Then why are their chemical compositions (particularly high levels of titanium) so different from earth rocks? You really should stop referencing Walt Brown; he’s a transparent crackpot.
I see nobody has yet mentioned the correspondence between radiometric age and stratigraphic position. Does your theory have an explanation for that? Several people have mentioned the correspondence of radiometric age of the same rock using different methods, which you have so far ignored. What do you have for that? How does this lightning produce consistent ages between sites for a single method, for that matter?
Some of them, yes.
I see nobody has yet mentioned the correspondence between radiometric age and stratigraphic position.
That conflicts with C14 and chemical dating methods…
Regarding explosions from Earth that put rocks in space or on the moon, the presence of Earth like bacteria in meteors for example is evidence of this.
Can we call this the lunacy theory?
Which ones, exactly? And in order for your scheme to work, wouldn’t it have to be all of them?
There are sources for tiny amounts of C14, and those supposed chemical dating methods are just not reliable. And even those don’t give you the ages of a few thousand years required by your YEC scheme. Why do you prefer them to radiometric dates?
There are no such meteors, but it actually is true that some earth rocks have must have been blasted into space. I don’t know of any that have actually been found on the moon. Do you? There are of course a few Mars rocks on earth, which we can tell from their chemical composition.
I see you once again present feeble responses to a couple of points and no response at all to most points. You are not presenting a good front for YEC here.
How do meteors have bacteria, and comets have Earth-like minerals?
No more outrageous than the Moon origin theory of it coming out of the Earth!!!
Before asking “how”, you need to confirm the “do”.
Otherwise the answer to your question is that meteorites have bacteria and comets have earth-like minerals in the same way that elephants fly.
Heh. Wacky Wally also thinks the asteroids are parts of the Earth’s crust blown off by the FOTD, and that the Flood cause the continents to move over 3000 miles in a single 24-hour period. 
Any other physical impossible Wacky Wally claims you wish to champion?
How fancy, that sure looks complicated with all those wires and shiny metal objects. I guess everything you say must be right now that you’ve posted a photo of a lab and linked a website.
No, it does not.
In the mean time you’ll continue to cite lightning as the cause of decay chains when teaching creationism at church, right?
Reference please.
Geology is the driving force for distribution of elements in rocks on the Earth, not stellar formation.
There are several problems your explanation faces:
Consilience between methods. Multiple parent-daughter isotope pairs give the same dates for the same formations. You would need to explain how U/Pb, K/Ar, Rb/Sr and Sm/Nd are consistent with one another even though they decay through different mechanisms and have different half lives.
Correlation with fossils. Why is it that we can’t find dinosaur fossils above rocks that contain ratios consistent with 65 million years of decay across many different isotope pairs?
Non-terrestrial rock. Why do meteors consistently date to 4.5 billion years old by all of those methods? (nod to @Rich_Hampton)
Secular equilibrium. Not all isotopes decay directly to the stable daughter isotope used in the method. Often, there is a chain of unstable intermediates. If decay rates were the same in the past then we can predict the relative ratio of these intermediates due to the equilibrium caused by production and decay rates. If decay rates were different in the past then we should see different ratios of intermediate isotopes, but we don’t. We see the expected equilibrium.
Nuclear physicists produce transmutations by the physics of manipulating atoms and sub-atomic particles. Alchemy tried to use chemical reactions to alter inexpensive elements like lead and iron into expensive elements like silver and gold. Once again, lets not let accidents of human language (in this case, words like transmutation and alchemy) get us too excited.
Rumraket,
regarding bacteria in meteorites:
The book Genesis by Robert Hazen (who is not a Creationist) and professor a my undergrad alma mater mentioned bacteria that lasted 4 billion years alive!
From Walt Brown’s Bibliography:
These DNA studies also rule out contamination, because the bacteria recovered and cultured from the meteorites were sufficiently different from modern strains.
u “Bruno D’Argenio, a geologist working for the Italian National Research Council, and Giuseppi Geraci, professor of molecular biology at Naples University, identified and brought back to life extraterrestrial microorganisms lodged inside [a supposedly] 4.5 billion-year-old meteorite kept at Naples’ mineralogical museum.” Rossella Lorenzi, “Scientists Claim to Revive Alien Bacteria,” Discovery News, www.discovery.com, 10 May 2001.
Because meteorites are so similar to the material inside Earth, many researchers believe that the Earth formed from infalling meteoroids. One should also consider whether the Earth produced meteoroids. Failure to consider both possibilities is the same logical fallacy described in Endnote 4, page 326. Much evidence opposes the former.
There have been several such claims. Of course all the ones I’m familiar with are from Martian meteorites, which seems to be backwards. And even those claims are dubious.
Ah, Walt Brown’s bibliography. That’s an instant red flag.
Thanks to Google, it’s trivial to find the actual abstract, and see that Walt Brown has once again mangled the author’s text, reversing the order of sections, mixing up antecedents, missing out some words and inserting others, and generally changing the meaning. The best that can be said is that at least this time Brown isn’t citing a paper written before the work was possible.
Crystals, rocks and mineral ores of different origins contain viable microbial life that appears actively swimming under the microscope when the sample is properly fragmented and suspended in a nutrient medium. This form of life in rocks is unaffected by time, since microbes have been found in samples of all geological ages, from about 2.8 Ga to recent rocks, and by pressure and temperature, since it is present in metamorphic and in igneous rocks. From the tests performed, among which those to secure from sample pollution, it emerges that this form of life is not destroyed, as indeed expected, when the rock is heated above 500 °C in a kiln. However, all cloned microbes are sensitive to growth inhibition by specific antibiotics. A similar search, for the presence of microbes in meteorites, shows that also these materials are rich in microorganisms, indicating that these already existed in early Earth formation stages. Some different microbial species, derived from different samples of rocks and meteorites, have been cultured, cloned and classified by 16S rDNA typing and found to be not essentially different from present day organisms. An interesting consequence of these findings, among others, is the support to the hypothesis that life came from outside Earth with the additional indication that it was already present in those materials that accreted to form the solar planetary system.
Make up yer mind, @stcordova.
So a classic case of contamination, detected as contamination by how you would detect them as contamination. But Sal insists it’s totally not contamination.
Walt Brown wil be proven dramatically wrong on this, if he hasn’t already. I can’t be bothered to look it up because, frankly, it is nonsense. Why - I almost added ‘on Earth’ - would original lunar basalt not contain radioactive elements? Was the moon not formed from the same interstellar dust as the Earth (in a roundabout way)?
What new ridiculous ad-hoc ‘explanation’ are you going to come up with next? The moon is made of green cheese?
And even if he was right (which he isn’t), how does that help you with explaining away the consilience in the data that indicates an age of 3.68Ga? What moved those points from one straight line to another straight line without introducing any measurable amount of noise?
Can you do some coin flip analogies for us to show that this is not at all improbable?