Faster Radioactive decay rates in the past is an unsound argument for young earth creationism

Pro: Please prove that the information given is unreliable from a non-religiously biased website.This is dishonest and irrelevant. I provided empirical evidence that you are ignoring. If you want to continue ignoring it, fine, as I have no idea how to convince you that you need to trust empirical evidence.I provided empirical evidence that showed they can be conatimated. You continue to reject empirical evidence. You simply just asserted that it was otherwise.This only argues that there may be affects on the helium clock. This is not observational evidence of that happening. Secularists must try to explain away why the helium dates are much younger than the other dating methods because it demolishes their trustworthiness. If you want to prove that this is true, show some observational evidence of helium leakage.Actually, the group that tested the argon and helium rates made predictions before they tested them, and the predictions came true. (1). This is a very good argument in favor of refuting the claims made by my opponent. Also, my opponent argues that helium escaped faster in the past. But, if this is true, there should be 2000 times more oxygen in the atmosphere today, but there isn't.I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.In order for my opponent to win this debate, he must continue denying empirical evidence, because once he accepts it, as he can't deny scientific facts, than he must admit that his proposition is incorrect.The Resolution of this debate was whether or not faster radioactive decay rates is an unsound argument. Everything above therefore is a red herring due to it's obsession with contamination which is not relevant to this debate.EVERYTHING BELOW IS RELEVANT.Pro, all of the crystals are found in rock layers. Not on the surface. These will not affect humans. This is a seriously embarrassing argument you keep using.Zircon is ubiquitous in the crust of Earth. It occurs in igneous rocks (as primary crystallization products), in metamorphic rocks and in sedimentary rocks (as detrital grains).--wikipediaAlso here's a list of some places with the crystals: http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org...Humans lived around those area's; none of them ever got radiation sickness. If radioactive decay rates were faster then they would've gotten radiation sickness.It is seriously embarrassing you don't know that. In case you don't know what ubiquitous means; it means: found everywhere.I will also make one more new argument:Faster Radioactive Decay Rates are unsound because it goes against the very equations governing the universe: Quantum Mechanics. "Radioactive decay is determined by quantum mechanics – which is inherently probabilistic. So it’s impossible to work out when any particular atom will decay, but we can make predictions based on the statistical behaviour of large numbers of atoms."--Institute of PhysicsSo to say that radioactive decay rates were different in the past is absurd because quantum mechanics has been proved true as much as something can be proved true in science meaning that you have to deny that quantum mechanics applied in the past and we know it did apply in the past.I'd also like to give this quote (about uranium lead dating):“the most reliable natural chronometer that we have when we want to look at the earliest part of Earth history.”--Doctor Mueller a geology professor from University of Florida.CONCLUSIONI just realized the entirety of round 3 was in fact a red herring on the part of con that I didn't recognize until now. Con's only claim about faster radioactive decay rates being a sound argument is that the zircon crystals are found in rocklayers which doesn't prove much since there are places that contain Zircon Crystals where humans have lived. I have also decided to bring up one last argument that has to do with Quantum Mechanics; to deny that argument con is going to have to deny quantum mechanics; one of the most successful theories in history.