Nuclear physics makes the Biblical flood impossible

Thank you for accepting this debate.

We know with great precision the half-life of most radioactive/unstable isotopes. Using this along with the parent-daughter decay chains we can test the age of a volcanic rock. This has been demonstrated time and time again. We use multiple methods to verify the ages given against each other. Most radiometric dating methods are resistant to contamination and those that aren't (like C14), contamination tends to make the sample younger and labs can correct for reservoir effects that make it look older. We regularly sample items and run analyses on them to determine their age and find items to be older than the ~6,000 years posited by the YEC model that underpins the Noachian Deluge narrative and flood models.

We do not simply assume these things to be true. We have verified these methods against samples of known ages. A prime example is Ar-Ar dating and the Mount Vesuvius eruption that destroyed Pompeii that returned a  age of 1925 ±66 years (in 2004) this equates to an age of 79 AD ±66 years  (Lanphere, M., Champion, D., Melluso, L. et al. 40Ar/39Ar ages of the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius, Italy. Bull Volcanol 69, 259–263 (2007).DOI 10.1007/s00445-006-0071-8.) There are many similar studies to verify our ability to use radiometric dating, the previously referenced article itself references multiple such studies just on the 79 AD Pompeii eruption. We also have many such studies calculating the half life of many radioactive isotopes, figures that get more and more precise over time. Also most dates are given using multiple dating methods, not just a single one.

Given all of this we can then use this knowledge to extend our search further back in time and find with regularity volcanic rock far older than the ~6,000 years that the YEC model claims the earth to be. And definitely older than the ~4,400 years that most flood proponents claim most fossils/rock to be. For this to be false, it would require nuclear physics to be wrong. It would require our understanding of nuclear decay to be substantially flawed. 

wow that`s a great explanation . looks like u have done a very through research here are some points from my side  

conclusion :- Radiometric dating provides a robust scientific method for determining the ages of rocks and geological events, consistently producing results that indicate an Earth much older than the ~6,000 years suggested by the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) model . Scientists use a variety of radioactive isotopes and decay chains, often employing multiple dating methods on the same samples to cross-verify the results . These techniques are grounded in fundamental principles of nuclear physics, and their accuracy is repeatedly confirmed through extensive research and calibration against samples of known historical age . 

I am not very good in this , but i can say that ur debate is a very good topic to debate on . And must be debate deeply     

So… this is awkward, but I appreciate the response. As written, it looks like we agree that radiometric dating supports an ancient Earth and that the methods are validated and cross-checked. My prompt was seeking a rebuttal from someone defending a YEC/flood models. Under the debate rules, please do one of the following so we can proceed coherently: (1) confirm you concede the resolution, or (2) state your specific point of disagreement and your strongest evidence/argument for the young-Earth position. If you accepted the open debate in error I understand as I see you likewise have no prior debates on this platform.

In lieu of a rebuttal, I’ll address a common young-Earth talking point used to explain away radiometric ages: that the rocks only look old because nuclear decay was drastically accelerated in the past (often during Creation Week and/or the Flood).

Three problems:

First, there is no experimental basis for the orders-of-magnitude increase in decay rates required to compress millions or billions of years into one year. Where environment effects have been observed at all, they are limited to special cases and are typically less than one percent level under laboratory conditions.. 

Second, even leading young-Earth advocacy of accelerated decay (e.g., the RATE project by the ICR) acknowledges that accelerating that much decay into a short window creates a severe heat problem (and closely related radiation issues). The heat produced is enough to evaporate the oceans and melt the granitic crust, leaving the Earth as a ball of molten rock.

Third, that heat and radiation aren’t side details—they are physically unavoidable consequences of the same decays that produce the daughter isotopes used for dating. Without a specific, testable mechanism that removes the energy and prevents lethal radiation damage, accelerated decay trades one problem (radiometric ages) for a larger, cascading set of problems.

As to vote on debates, it requires you to have three debates without conceding any rounds, you can type out a response for each round. It would allow this debate to still count towards that three debate count.

My opponent has not forwarded a counterclaim. So for the purposes of this debate the affirmative is uncontested. In this debate I put forth that radiometric dating is calibrated, verified, consistent, and resistant to contamination. I also showed that if accelerated decay were true, that there are several major issues that even several major YEC acknowledge. I would have enjoyed a short discussion as to how we know radiometric dating to be a result of fundamental nuclear physics, making accelerated decay impossible. Another interesting branch of debate would be how we know it to be reliable despite YEC counterclaims like the mount St Helens rock dated to much older than it was (due to misapplication of radiometric dating), or Dinosaur bones that were C14 dated to 50,000 years old (due to contamination). An actual rebuttal would be welcomed. Anything worth believing, is also worth being put to the test.