Let’s make this easy. I will spell it out in plain language.
The predication is made that you will not find an in-situ, naturally occurring zircon crystal above any sedimentary rock laid down during the Flood or in-between any Flood-level rocks. Flood strata may be any single level shown below, any combination, or all levels.
According to your graphic, the Quarternary (any single layer shown below) is a Flood strata. Do you see a problem with that in regards to your prediction?
Sigh. I guess I have to explain further.
Let’s cut a deal, whaddaya say? I believe very strongly in this idea. Further, I think it actually correctly describes earth history and Life history. But as for you - you do not care, nor will you ever see it the way I describe. Therefore, I have to ask Why are we discussing this? Let’s agree to end the discussion. How about it?
I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m trying to understand your prediction. Tell me where I go wrong:
Flood strata may be any single level shown below, any combination, or all levels.
I take that to mean that the Quarternary is in a flood strata.
sedimentary rock laid down during the Flood or in-between any Flood-level rocks
I take that include sedimentary rock laid down in the Quarternary
you will not find an in-situ, naturally occurring zircon crystal above any sedimentary rock laid down during the Flood or in-between any Flood-level rocks.
I then read this to predict I will not find natural zircon above sedimentary rock in the Quarternary. Problem is, there is no more recent period, so of course you find zircon or anything else above the present.
Would you say that all fossil-bearing strata, and all rocks above the lowest fossil-bearing strata, were laid down in the Flood?
Now, there are several problems with your claims, if I understand them at all. They not only require all zircons in intrusive igneous rocks to be inclusions, they require all other crystals used for dating rocks also to be inclusions. But that’s just about any mineral in a rock. Where are all the native crystals? Apparently there are none. How is that even possible? Worse, in whole rock dating, it requires the ground material also to be an inclusion. And all these inclusions have to match each other, all over the world, and have to be arranged in a regular series from bottom to top, and have to be correlated closely with the fossils above and below them. None of that makes the least bit of sense.
I know your concerns, but I still think the idea is falsifiable. Yes, zircons are tough and endure otherwise damaging geological processes. And yes, they can be transported as inclusions.
I personally think they are at the bottom of the column so to speak (or included as you say). So I guess we could take it one of two ways. Either I am right that native crystals will never appear inside or above Life levels. Or you are right and as you say, “apparently there are none.”
Which is it?
Not an answer. You require that no zircons were formed native to any of the rocks you think are Flood rocks. You also require that no other minerals used in dating (feldspars are an obvious example) were also formed native to those rocks. How credible is that?
Igneous rocks are overwhelmingly composed of crystals that formed when their magma cooled. In the case of intrusive rocks, that’s a short period. We aren’t talking about a few zircons but about the major components of the rocks.
I should also note that some sediments can be directly dated using decay products of diagenetic minerals. Guess what: they’re old too. Here’s a review.
Zircons from the Quarternary:
Wouldnt it be a stretch to assume that all fossils found on earth were trapped within lava? Do you think Lava covered the whole earth?
And what about finding fossils at different depths?
Now who is arguing from incredulity?
Actually in your uniformitarian paradigm it should be not so hard to falsify my idea. You believe the fossil levels were laid down over millions of years. As such, it would be assumed that volcanic activity in pristine form should be sandwiched in-between some of those layers.
Find them, make a sound argument regarding their [that is, crystals’] native state and quality, and …if corroborated, you have falsified my idea.
This is not an argument in your favor. Those labs are dating leaching of contaminants.
Sorry but you have a basic misunderstanding of what I am proposing. Even the title of your selection eliminates it as an argument in your favor
Magmatic tempo of Earth’s youngest exposed plutons as revealed by detrital zircon U-Pb geochronology
I will try again to explain it better at some point.
My point in posting the article is to show that in the most recent deposits of sedimentary material (from the Quarternary), some less than a million years old, we find zircons that have the same age as the surrounding material.
As I understand you, this would be considered Flood strata. So, where could we possibly find younger material to search for zircons?
You are. I see you won’t actually engage with the questions. I’m still trying to figure out what your claims are, and you won’t clarify. Apparently, it’s your contention that all mineral crystals found in all Phanerozoic (or perhaps earlier) rocks are inclusions from older rocks. You won’t actually say so, and you won’t defend the implications of that claim.
How would I make that case? What would convince you of such a thing? You automatically dismiss all radiometric dates as resulting from inclusions (if that is indeed what you mean by “contamination”). How would anyone show that a lava flow was “pristine”?
What is your justification for that claim? Diagenetic minerals form in situ during lithification of sedimentary rocks.
Pristine was a poor word-choice in this conversation. Sorry.
It has been my view from the beginning that all melts will exhibit inclusions such as xenoliths and xenocrysts. So no, of course I do not believe you will find a “pristine” lava flow. To clarify, if your paradigm is correct, one should be able to find a native, undisturbed, untouched lava flow between fossiliferous strata wherein equally undisturbed zircon crystals can be reliably dated. Since zircons seem to return ages anywhere from 1M to 4.5B years, that find would falsify my idea.
And you are leaving out the important point of this lithification process – radioactive isotopes are present ! Sedimentary rock cannot be dated. Period. Contamination must first be present to obtain any kind of date reading.
And you are missing the whole point of the article and why they invoke the process in the first place. It’s in lieu of identifying the igneous source that is responsible for the radioactive leaching. Surely you don’t believe that all sedimentary rock can be dated in this manner, do you ?!
Go on. How would one determine that a lava flow was native, undisturbed, and untouched? How would one determine to your satisfaction that zircons were undisturbed? And why consider only zircons?
Well of course they are. Radiometric dating is impossible without radioactive isotopes. That’s not contamination, it’s the raw material for mineral crystals. The crystals incorporate the radioactive istotopes but not their daughter products, which allows dating based on the presence of daughter products. I don’t understand your objection.
No, just some, and that’s all it takes to falsify your claims.
What? Any igneous rock in the field whether there for billions of years or whether just spewed up today will contain contaminants! Just the venting of the lava event erupting through the vent hole scrapes off innumerable xenoliths on its way up and out.
Sure. But will it contain nothing but contaminants? Your claim requires that all radiometric dates, without exception, must arise from xenoliths. What are the odds of that?
Extremely high. Probably 100%…so…let’s agree on a clock. I thought already did that. How about a zircon crystal. That is an excellent clock. One that truly starts ticking the moment magma starts cooling.
If you really believe that, there is nothing we can talk about. That’s some weird geology you have there. If every crystal in every igneous rock is much older than the rock, what is the rock at all? All its parts are old but the rock is young? This makes not even surface sense.
But zircons show that the rocks are old. (And, incidentally, they agree with dates using other minerals in the same rocks.) I don’t understand what you’re trying to do here.