...nobody knows for sure how C-14 worked back then. The whole energy of the earth was different before the Flood.
Really?
Really?
Carbon was different 5000 years ago?
Prove it!
No experiment has ever suggested such a thing (like every claim you make)
How would a radioactive half-life be different back then? How does that make sense, even in your world?
Science is the ones making the assertions. Let them prove C-14 was the same if they can.
Science has proven this to the extent that it can be proven without a time machine
Half-life is a half-life... that's simply what it is... if you do not understand a half-life, aka radioactive decay, you have no business commenting on C-14 dating
If you claim things worked differently in the past than they do today... that is YOUR claim... YOU need to provide evidence
One reason NOBODY takes you seriously is because you make such bullshit claims without any evidence at all to support it... it's all lies, misinformation and propaganda
Things working different in the past is the claim of science. Look at Big Bang. Things worked different back then. But nobody even knows that there was a Big Bang. Science is so mixed up, that there isn't any reason to believe a word they say.
C-14 amounts present today are not reliable because nobody knows for sure how much C-14 existed back prior to the Great Flood. If there were 100 times the C-14 present back then as we think now, it would throw the whole C-14 science off. And if there were 100 times less, it would be the same. We don't know how much there was back then. We are just guessing that it was similar as today.
You are simply wrong
Science has shown that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed
Science is familiar with the only natural mechanism which transforms lighter elements into carbon (supernova explosions of stars)
Science understands what a half-life is, and why that is important when dating radioactive elements
Science knows for certain there was not a supernova explosion nearby during the past 5000 years
Therefore, it is clear that the amount of C-14 has not changed in the last 5000 years (except through natural process of atomic decay)
Your claim that it has changed, has not met the burden of proof... this is how science works... you are wrong... like always
That's not at all what I am talking about. Let me try to explain it simply.
Let's say that we find some dead plant matter that we are reasonably certain had not been disturbed since it died. We test for C-14 quantities. We find that there is X amount of C-14 in that plant matter.
From this we can calculate how much C-14 there would have been in the matter any age back into the past,
provided that the plant matter existed at any age we want to look at. In fact, if we went back far enough, the plant matter might have been twice as massive, made up of who knows how many times the C-14 that exists in it today.
Here is the question. How much C-14 did it have in it when it died? We don't have any way of knowing this because, we don't really know how much C-14 existed within the location where it lived, at the time in which it lived.
Let me say it again in a different way.
If a plant died 1000 years ago, and we found its dead remains and tested it for C-14, we might guess that it lived 10,000 years ago. Why? Because the environment in which it lived had only a tenth of the C-14 that we would have expected. Because we expected a whole lot more C-14 in its environment, and because we didn't know that the environment that it lived in had only a 10th of the amount we expected, we dated it incorrectly.
Because of this, there is little if any way to get a correct reading from C-14 carbon dating. Rather, it is a trick that scientists use to get us all to believe that the Earth is a lot older than it really is. Why do they do this? I am certain that they do it to make the idea of evolution into something that is possible, even though the probability math says evolution is impossible beyond beyond. And this to destroy the idea of God in the eyes of many.