It sounds like you are setting all the standards, which neither I nor anyone will really believe you are 1. qualified to do, or 2. capable of doing.
So where do you want to go with this? You have not won an argument, nor proved your point. Where are we headed here?
Let’s see it.
If I remember the argument, you pulled zircon crystals out of the air in an attempt to throw anything you could at my claim that your radiometric dating is doing science wrong and that it cannot, in any way, legitimately date sedimentary rock or fossils.
so you are basically saying that only the minority of amino acids in a given protein cant be replaced, not the majority. right?
I have previously cited several papers on the subject the last time this came up. You could easily google this yourself. Let me know if you can’t find anything and I’ll look for you. “Xenotime” would be one handy search term.
If. But how do you explain zircons dated as billions of years old? Are they billions of years older than the universe? Forget about dating the rocks or the fossils. What about the zircons themselves?
And I am quite sure that if we did do an investigation, we would find starting assumptions using old dates to do the math. I am not interested if you are not willing to send links and discuss it honestly.
I told you over a year ago where you will and will not find zircon crystals in the geologic column. You will not find them as native and “mixed in” with life (fossils), but rather in or above basement rock only.
Only when we first agree to that point can the topic then turn to where the “billions of years” come in.
Yes, that’s how creationism works: assume the result ahead of time, and in that case the actual investigation is unnecessary.
How is that relevant to my question? Regardless of whether zircons are “native”, how do you explain their determined ages?
On the contrary, that is not sad at all ! @mgoes2, you are to be commended for your honest approach to find the science that first, supports God and Scripture, and second, supports the evidence. I hope you come down hard on the side of creationism and a full rejection of evolution. All the best in your investigation.
LOL. No, I just accused you of doing that. I already know the math will be biased. There is no fossilized organism on the planet that can legitimately date in the millions of years.
Are you agreeing about my claim of zircon placement then? Billions of years is easy to explain.
Note that right after you accuse me of doing it, you do it again. Evidence, shmevidence.
Please do so, in that case.
I asked you a question. Where are native zircons found?
And I asked you a question. Repeatedly. Why should I have to answer your question first?
I presume you mean zircons formed in the rock they’re found in. Is that correct?
What else would I mean by native?
OK, then what about the first result I found googling “authigenic zircons”?
If these zircon crystals are found in the sediments, they are intruded.
Here’s a neat one, which happens to be the second result from my google search. Both detrital zircons (necessarily older than the rock) and authigenic monazites (necessarily younger than deposition of the sediments) are used to constrain the dates of an ancient sedimentary rock.
It’s no use. Every single instance will either be 1. the zircons are found “near and around” the sediments or 2. they will be intruded.
The 2nd option amounts to “zircon transport”.
Fascinating how you can know this without even looking at the relevant papers, much less the zircons themselves. Now consider the 2nd paper, in which the zircons are freely agreed to be detrital. When those zircons are dated, are those dates correct? How old are the zircons, in your opinion?
Likely in the billions of years - with qualifications, that is.
So you agree that radiometric dating actually works. But how can a zircon be billions of years old if you’re a young earth creationist? This seems contradictory.