quote:
I said "throughout the sequence". Which means from samples before and after 5,000 years.
You know that carbon samples were taken specifically beyond 5000 deep in a living tree, how? Citation exactly where the areas samples were taken from? The 'dating' of dead trees are not the topic here for you claim of nature being the same. I am not interested in statements of faith.
The issue is not how dates are attained using a belief in a same nature in the past. The issue is how you claim that carbon samples in trees with more rings than would be possible if the traditional estimates of when the flood happened exist in the specific area of 5000 plus deep tree rings on a living tree.
If you can't do that, fine. We might move on to looking at specs in sequences from dead trees.
quote:
If there was no (or different) decay at the time the Universe would have been so fundamentally different that life as we know it would be impossible
I see nothing in the universe that suggests this. I suspect what you are thinking may be that the far universe is dated at billions of years old. Therefore you may think that seeing light from out there represents a sameness? That would not work either. We do not know, and that means science does not know what time itself or space itself are like in the far universe. This means that no distances to any star or any sizes, or travel times from stars are knowable. The only way you attach travel TIME and distances is based on believing that space and time are the same as we observe it here near earth. This also means that all TIMES of decay we observe anywhere out there beyond this solar system area are seen IN our time and space here. That could not be taken to represent decay times out there. We see the light only after it gets here.
Your dates are faith based.