Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay

You still have the problem of rock and sediment formation. There are sedimentary basins that span this time period, as well as pluton formation. This can't happen with the spectacular amount of heat being generated. What about clay sediments that date to 2 billion years before present? How does that work? How does a flood produce radioactive elements? That's just wacky. 40K is hardly the only radioactive element in the body. There is also uranium, 14C, and radium to name a few. Obviously, uranium was around because we find it in the oldest rocks. It is soluble in water so it would been in the drinking water just like it is now, and it would have moved into cells just like it does now.

I was referring more to this:"specifically approximately 4 billion years worth in the first three days of Creation before there was any life to kill"Life is hardly the only problem. Rocks will be changed by the massive production of heat as well.Also, having two eras of extreme decay rates should produce rocks with one of two ages, either 4.5 billion years old or 500 million years old. There shouldn't be anything in between, and yet there is. Even if we grant magical heat removal there is still the problem of a whole range of dates that shouldn't be there. There is carbon isotope fractionation in photosynthesis, but it is only about a 1% shift towards one isotope, hardly the all or none needed in this scenario. If you are going to have naturally occuring biochemistry do this fractionation then it begs the question of how it was lost across all life. Surely we should find some remnant of it in modern organisms.It reminds me of a time when I was having a discussion with a creationist on the topic of inverted retinas. He made the assertion that perhaps the human retina faced forward, but then became inverted after the "Fall". I then pointed out that ALL vertebrates have an inverted retina, and that his scenario would require the retinas to invert in thousands and thousands of species over the span of just a few thousand years. It just isn't practical. I see the same problem with isotope fractionation.

Then why even have accelerated decay? Why not just directly change the ratio of isotopes in the rocks? I guess that could work, sort of. Perhaps ash deposited in the last month of the flood year would have less time for accelerated decay. Perhaps the problem would be rock between the ages of 4 billion and 500 million? How do you get those ages? I would assume that all of the rocks created when the Earth was created would have gone through the same amount of accelerated decay so they should all be the same age (4 billion). How do you get rock that is 2 billion years old?On top of everything else, the entire psychology of this approach is . . . interesting. Creationists try so hard to use only scientific or natural explanations to explain how the flood left the geologic record we see. However, when they run up against insurmountable odds they whip out magic. Why not just do that from the very start instead of using preposterous flood geology to explain the deposits? Why not just say that God magically sorted the fossils so that they just look like an evolutionary sequence instead of using ecological zones or whatever madness they come up?Once you invoke magic you can't unring that bell, so why not go whole hog?