I did not discuss this technique because it seems a pretty straightforward combination of various parent-daughter relationships.
The Wikipedia article that you reference would seem to confirm this.
Jim stated that “uranium is preferentially encased in these [zircon] crystals while lead is preferentially excluded” but did not fully explain the significance of this.
It can be experimentally confirmed that molten Zircon rejects lead.
He has equipment at the University of Adelaide and does the dating analysis himself.
Thus he has the knowledge of an experienced practitioner and is not just an armchair theoretician.
Furthermore, a recent article “Metallic lead nanospheres discovered in ancient zircons” says (in the introductory “Significance” section): “The heterogeneous distribution of Pb can, however, affect isotopic measurement by microbeam techniques, leading to spurious age estimates.” This raises significant questions for the technique and casts doubt over its robustness.Nor was there discussion about how well the experimental conditions that have been mentioned would have represented the situation within crystallizing magmas.Uniformitarians assume magmas crystallized slowly over millions of years under conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium.To make such a claim, one would need to know independently and unarguably just what the age of the Earth actually is.I submit that there is no such independently and unarguably known age—unless one is prepared to accept the age that is derived from the Bible, that was provided to us by God, an eyewitness, and some reliable scribes.