But Peter's words come originally from Psalm 90:4
Nifster: "My larger concern is the idea that carbon dating has validity in the long scale."
Note the ending of verse 4:
Carbon dating is only one of dozens of different methods for determining ancient materials' ages.
Carbon dating covers periods back to about 60,000 years ago, but other radiometric dating methods go back billions of years.
One key question is whether radioactive decay worked the same in Deep Time as today, and the Bible seems to tell us, yes it did.
Another key scientific discovery was also predicted many times in the Bible when, for example:
Oh my word.... I honestly am unsure if you are twisting the word intentionally, or are just missing things...
The end of verse 4 does NOT say as you claim. In fact, 2 Peter 3 is a condemnation for all of you promoting man’s ideas over the word of God.
Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, Where is this coming he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by Gods word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. - 2 Peter 3:3-5
You quoted just what the scoffers at the end will say as part of your proof.
But Peter's words come originally from Psalm 90:4 "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Note the Psalm does not make a strict equation of 1 Day = 1,000 years, but rather makes the time period indefinite -- 1,000 years might be a full day for God or just a four hour "watch in the night". So God's experience of time is clearly different than ours, and cannot be strictly equated.
We each get to account for what we individually claim the Scripture says and means. Apparently God did not see fit for Peter to add your particular disclaimer on how He marks time.
Unfortunately carbon dating is used to claim much longer time periods. Its use gets shakier and shakier as science finds new methods
Assuming things not in evidence because of word selection by translators is always dicey
Stretching out a canopy does not in and of itself imply anything. Allegory should never be assumed to be scientific