With all of the talk about radiometric dating, as in the dating of meteors and such like with appropriate isotopes, I thought I would provide a number of examples of the flaws in modern radiometric dating.
Rocks that were created since the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens have been dated to be 2.8 billion years old.
There is a Sunset Crater in Arizona. Scientists have used radiometric dating (Potassium / Argon the rocks from the crater there and estimated the rocks to be more than 200,000 years old. It was formed in 1065. Indian records have confirmed the date.
Lava flow deposits in New Zealand, at Mt. Ngaurhoe were tested Potassium - Argon isotope radiometric to be at least 275,000 years old. Lava flows from the mountain happened in 1949, 1954 and 1975.
In Hawaii, the Hualalai volcano erupted with basalt lava in 1800 and 1801, and more recently, Mauna Loa erupted in 1984. Rocks from this lava flow were tested with Potassium / Argon to be 1.4 million to 22 million years old.
Here is another one from Sicily: Rocks from Mt. Etna were tested to be from 140,000 - 350,000 years old. In reality, rocks from the lava date from 1972.
Now I wonder why anyone would not question radiometric for dating any kind of rocks, least of all meteors from outer space? Why not treat radiometric dating results with the skepticism that it deserves? If it has shown to be a failure in many instances, why continue to use it as though it is reliable? Could it be that some have a vested interest in the results of such tests because they want it to disprove evidence of a young earth?