Going back to the opening post:
The problem is that you can’t have a recent creation of life or life being created over just 6 days since radiometric dating is used to determine the age of fossils, and those ages are spread over ~550 million years for plants and animals.
I already told you, the lava flows can be young, but the inclusions from deep within the mantle contaminate every sample you gather. When you think you are dating a fossil, you are actually dating the planet.
Caught ya. This is you throwing away millions of years of science. [See your words in the quote box]
There aren’t any inclusions in zircons, and zircons can’t exist in flowing lava. Your explanation doesn’t work. Scientists are careful to pick out crystal that would only form once the lava crystalizes in place on the surface of the Earth.
Sounds like you found some very old crystals on earth. Good for you. But are you trying to date life using those crystals?
No. They (scientists) use fossils, among other things, for that. And guess what. Life is older than six thousand years.
We are dating the igneous rocks above and below fossils using zircons that formed when those lava deposits cooled. We could also cite tektites which are the cooled ejecta from massive meteor impacts:
Tektites consistently date to 65 million years at the K/T boundary. How is it that in multiple places those tektites will all date to the same time period?
This might be a good place to (once again) mention Dalrymple’s amazing essay on this subject. I normally describe things in my own word, but Dalrymple states it so perfect and succinctly that it is better to just quote him.
The homework problem for @r_speir and the creationist community is to explain how the K/T tektites consistenly date to 65 million years old at multiple cites and by multiple methods, and how they are consistently correlated with specific fossils.
Oooooo… that’s a good one … you had me when you said “consistently correlated with specific fossils!”
Good thing, right? Those were the last words of the last sentence! 
Always end with a bang!
Of course, the same concept applies to all fossils, not just the youngest dinosaur fossils found at the end of the Cretaceous. You won’t find mammal fossils below igneous rock layers that are 500 million years old. It isn’t as simple as casting doubt on radiometric dating. You also have to explain the correlation between radiometric dating and specific fossil groups.
I like Dalrymple. But you are not listening. He is dating the planet, not fossils.
The fossils are in the planet. Last I checked, dinosaurs don’t dig through the ground after they die. Therefore, a dinosaur fossil will be younger than the igneous rocks below it and older than the igneous rocks that lie above it if those igneous rocks cooled from lava where they are found (e.g. tektites). This is the law of superposition.
No. This is a completely different paradigm. Lava flows above and below are young during the Flood. The world is a large burial ground. Lava flows during the Flood all contain inclusions like the ones Dalrymple points out. Those inclusions are dating a very old planet. You are confusing young life getting mixed up with old planet debris as saying the life is also old.
How do you explain the correlation between these inclusions and specific fossil groups? Why would dinosaur fossils on the opposite sides of the globe never be found above lava flows dating 30 million years old or younger?
I think you better check the science behind dating. Fossils date the rock don’t they, not the other way around? Fossils of a specific kind are first found, then a priori dates of those fossils date the rock if I am not mistaken. Those a priori assumptions are in error according to this paradigm.
You are mistaken. Absolute radiometric dating is used to first date the strata certain fossils are found in. Then those fossils may be used as index fossils and used to date other sediments where the fossils are found. Here is a good overview from Nature
Ratios of isotopes in the rocks date the rocks, not fossils.
How do you explain the correlation between fossils and the ratios of specific isotopes in igneous rocks above and below the fossil?
You are being ridiculous. There are multiple methods for dating rock… and none of them require knowing the dates of fossils!
Hi r speir. Its been awhile. I wanted to respond to you, but not sure how to understand my comment which out of context i cannot make sense of! K wise does not agree to any of the attempts of young earth creationists to propose scientific models on radiometric dating that would alter the conclusions that seem to suggest that these truly reference an old earth. He just says that if scripture decisively says the earth is young, and mans science says its old, then God must have done that which science is incapable of interpreting correctly and he sticks with scripture.
I will say this- if the worldwide flood occurred which science does show this to be a reasonable possibility, this act of God could have altered the natural to where science becomes useless in some respects- possibly even radiometric dating… Science is already in a twist in its declaration that mass energy cannot be created or destroyed, but at the ssme time cannot make sense of the idea that it existed eternally in the past therefore concluding that it must have been created!
Yeah, that just isn’t true. Lava flows seldom contain older inclusions, though intrusive rocks are more likely to. However, you can determine that by dating different bits; the inclusions will show up as older. Further, contamination wouldn’t result in consistent ordering of dating over the geological column. You are satisfying your needs by making up excuses that don’t bear up under examination.
