Time for a pause. You cannot hear what I am saying for two reasons. 1. you don’t want to and 2. you don’t really have to. All the weight of academia, science, and money is on your side.
Why are we discussing this? Why are you discussing this, when you don’t want to or have to?
You said:
I’m assuming that by “lava flows” you refer to rocks above and below the sediments you consider Flood rocks, the ones with fossils in them.
But you just finished agreeing that the zircons in the LRS formed at the same time the rock containing them was formed. These lava flows are intermixed with sediments. I am unable to reconcile all this.
But I do want to discuss this. I’m trying to get a coherent story out of you, without which any real discussion is impossible.
LRS - very old lava flows showing zircon crystallization. Probably around 120 - 130 m years old
URS - read the text …! Crystals are in detrital form. Nothing says the URS is even close to the same age as the LRS. You - because of your worldview - automatically make the assumption that they are similar in age. Show me where it absolutely spells that out. Fact: it does not spell it out anywhere.
Not all that old, only Late Mesozoic. Note that most zircons in the URS are inclusions, but some are not, sufficient to date the rock. You are right that it’s more recent than the LRS, though only by about 20ma. The inclusions don’t prevent dating using the native crystals. But that hardly matters. There are fossils in layers below the LRS. Since you agree that the LRS is ancient, that shows that the fossils below it must be at least as ancient.
Show them to me in this region of study.
Let me get this straight: Is it your contention there are no signs of life anywhere which can be conclusively dated to older than 4000 BC, roughly 6000 years ago?
To echo Dr. Swamidass, what will you do with your views if we do indeed shown you some examples?
All the physical evidence is on our side too. 
Is that why you’re reluctant to go on?
Get transparent. It would disappoint you if I changed my mind.
You are wrong there, but admittedly, I am woefully underfunded and outnumbered.
The fact all the physical evidence is against you isn’t helping either.
Are you willing to discuss cases of life being older than 6000 years?
Hehe. Of course it would diasappoint me on some levels. I like diversity and there are not many YLC out there. I appreciate that you show me respect even when we disagree,
As great as those things are, you have a right to change your mind. It is also helpful to know when your requests for evidence are actually capable of changing your mind.
Honestly, I understand what you believe, but I’m still figuring out why you believe it. Clearly evidence is important to you, both in science and in Scripture. To me, it is not clear the rules of your game. I’m not sure in what ways evidence in science matters to you, for example, if you cannot reconcile it with Scripture. I’m also not clear how you identify and correct mistakes in reading Scripture.
Perhaps this more determined by social constraints too? Perhaps the church you attend can stomach YLC, but despises OEC?
You have me there. I’m having trouble locating any published stratigraphic section for the area that features both fossiliferous deposits and those basalt flows. Let me instead substitute this, which has just such a section (Fig. 1).
That still doesn’t work because we would expect large differences in results when using different rocks in the same formation and different decay chains to date them.
Lava flows on top of sedimentary rock, meaning that the lava is younger than the rock below it. Sedimentary rock forms on top of already existing igneous rocks, so the sedimentary layer is older than the igneous rocks below it. Therefore, if we date the igneous rocks above and below a sedimentary layer that gives us the age range of when that sedimentary rock formed. Do you see a problem with this logic?
Well of course it doesn’t, for many reasons.
This is what really draws me to the evolution/creationism as a subject as interest.
Flood deposits will be laid down at the lowest levels in any given location. Zircon ages at those locations will return differing ages. This demonstrates why your paradigm is faulty from the ground floor up:
But what you emphatically cannot and should not do is use later zircon dating from one site and try to wedge Trilobites in-between an earlier dating from another site…! This wedge-action of yours is forced and does not in any way give you license to claim that Trilobites are really and truly millions of years old.
Example: sites below should be kept separate. The zircons are simply yielding dates based on original and very old lava flows and they will differ around the world. Those ages have nothing to do with the ages of living things like Trilobites, which came millions of years later in earth history.
Simple fix. Fossiliferous Flood deposits for Cambrian creatures should always be found – on top of, or very nearly beside (within reasonable distance) – any zircon crystals in volcanic ash. Let radio-ages date the planet only, not Life.
What does that even mean? Can you give us a few examples of where the pre Flood / post Flood boundary has been conclusively established?
I too have no idea what that means.
You can’t just assert that. It’s true that trilobites extend from the Early Cambrian through the end of the Paleozoic. But they’re different trilobites at different times. Cambrian trilobites are all very different from Permian trilobites.
You clearly misunderstand how stratigraphic correlation works and what it means. I’m sorry I ever tried to engage with you.
You will note that each site has dates at different levels, between which are fossils. Your claim that all zircons everywhere are not part of the lava flows in which they are found would require that zircons used to form in lava flows but no longer do so. Why should that happen? And it would require an extremely consistent movement of zircons from old lava, correlating ages of zircons within and between sections. How could that possibly happen?
How are you able to date trilobites?
I do not know what that was supposed to mean either.