Why? Please elaborate.
John,
The reason Iâm formulating my college-level ID/Course is so I have my arguments in one place. Iâm tired of typing up explanations and repeating them. I may or may not have explained it to you explicitly. I donât remember. Iâll put it in one place, and when itâs available, Iâll let you know. But itâs not like I havenât every addressed the issues before, like here:
and here:
http://creationevolutionuniversity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186
I mean we could start talking Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Variable Speed of Light Theories and Lorentzian relativity, and re-interpretations of Michelson-Morley and reconstructions of interferometers, but these arenât trivial topics. They are college level physics topics.
Thatâs not going to work. For example, U/Pb dating in zircons would not be affected by âcontaminantsâ in the lava flow. Zircons form after the lava has cooled, and when they form they exclude Pb. This is basic chemistry. Therefore, there will be nearly zero Pb in zircons when they form, no matter how much Pb is in the initial lava flow. The Pb we find in zircons is from the U that decays. This is further supported by the concordance between the two decay chains of the two U isotopes.
Unless you can tell us why sedimentary rock buried under layers of lava flows would be younger than the lava flows, we will continue to use igneous rocks to give us age ranges for the sedimentary rocks above and below them.
1 Like
That wasnât an answer to my question, nor did it even hint at the existence of such an answer. If you recall, I was asking why a book on the formation of the solar system, nothing to do with the speed of light, convinced you that it was created.
I believe in profoundly old lava flows. Billions of years old. I donât see a problem.
Sedimentary rock and the lava flows would be the same age during the Flood. Much older lava flows of course would exist. Those would be found under sedimentary levels laid down in the Flood. Still not a problem.
You understand that zircons also appear in younger lava flows, right? And so do K-feldspars and various other datable minerals. How do those uniformly get contaminated by decay products?
Also, for our information, how do you distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks and post-flood rocks? Are there points in the standard geologic column that correspond to the start and end of the flood? If so, what?
Then how do you explain the sedimentary layers and fossils found below them?
Then how do you explain the ancient age of the lava flows found above fossil bearing sedimentary rocks? As we have shown, it canât be âcontaminatedâ lava flows.
Your use of âyoungerâ will not help us along in our discussion. The important fact will be where this exact lava flow you refer to is located and what it contains. Can you show it to us?
But you also agree that there are older and younger lava flows. âYoungerâ would be anything found within or after what you consider to be flood deposits. Thatâs why I asked you to identify which rocks are flood rocks.
Assuming that you think the Mesozoic is during the flood, I googled âzircons in Mesozoic basaltsâ, and this was the first result.
We could use the K/T boundary as our example. There are many fossil species below the K/T boundary, and we have various places around the world where we can date these rocks.
Thatâs multiple independent decay chains used on multiple types of rocks at multiple locations by multiple scientists, and they all give the same dates.
1 Like
Often, these days, by finding the boundary clay.
Thanks for this. It exactly makes my point and supports the ideas I propose. Read it over carefully again. Pay attention to LRS and URS and detrital grains. The last four sentences are important.
edit: Occurrences of zircons will be below life layers or intruded only.
With contaminants.
They conclude that most of the zircons in the URS are older than the rock and are inclusions, while the zircons in the LRS are the same age as the rock. The ages of both rocks, however, are Mesozoic, and presumably you attribute those rocks to the flood. The data contradict your claim. Even the zircon data contradict your claim, without getting into other minerals that, unlike zircons, are not found as inclusions.
Are you claiming that the contaminants are in the form of crystals older than the rock? But in that case, wouldnât the entire rock be contaminant, especially if we arenât just talking about zircons any more?
That was already discussed. Contamination canât explain this data.
It isnât clear what he means by contamination. Iâm speculating he means that the particular crystals used to date the rocks are contaminants, not that the crystals are forming from magma and somehow incorporating contaminants. Not sure how that works with whole-rock dates. Perhaps everything is old crystals.
It can also be found that most of the zircons from the LRS basalts have a relatively homogeneous ages with only a few ancient zircon relicts, which indicates that they have little crustal contamination during petrogenesis. Some zircon grains show core-rim structure with a core age of about 132 Ma and a rim age of about 120 Ma, which may indicate that the inherited grains were captured from the magma source, and imply that there exist magmatic rocks formed at about 130 Ma in the mantle or mantle-crustal boundary during the LRS magma activity. The magmatic zircons from URS basalts are very few, many detrital grains were dated with the ages covering almost all of the magmatic events in the South China block. It is suggested that the URS basaltic rocks were contaminated by clastic rocks which contained the detrital grains with different ages.
I donât have a problem with the ages of the zircon crystals or grains. However, nothing noted above says they began to crystallize concurrent with the sediments containing fossils.
Everything you quoted indicated contamination. What makes you think you can take molten rock from the interior of the earth, put it next to a completely different kind of rock formed entirely on the surface of the planet, and successfully date the secondary rock? You are confusing the sciences.
No, of course not. For that we have stratigraphy. Note that the zircons in the LRS formed during the LRS activity, not earlier. The URS zircons formed at the same time as the ones in the LRS, and thus are slightly older than the rock containing them. Your previous claim was that these rocks formed during the Flood, 6000 years ago. And yet what you have quoted says they formed during the Mesozoic, 120-130 million years ago to be precise. If that dating is correct, which you seem to have accepted, then they canât have formed during a recent flood, and your claims are wrong.
When did I make this claim?
Those zircons crystals formed incredibly earlier than Flood sediments. Thatâs when the crystals began to form - namely, 130 mya.