Been away for a few days, but I noticed that you posted a number of questions about C14 dating.
I strongly recommend that you read all the material you can find concerning C14 on the talk.origins website. So far as I know, every one of your questions has been answered there, since you're pulling them off a YEC website that merely repeats standard and long-debunked YEC claims. You really need to do your own research in this area if you want to understand it, and the talk.origins site will give you far better and more detailed information that will point you in directions where you can do your own research in primary source materials than anyone I know of on our discussion board is willing to provide. I see no sense in simply copying here what is available there.
Some observations:
As you accumulate more knowledge of what science actually says, from the papers and books written by actual scientists, rather than via the typical misrepresentations and half-truths presented by young-earth creationists, you'll find patterns that are self-consistent but not perfect. Science is never perfect in the sense that YECs claim the Bible is. It is simply the sum of the best interpretations of evidence that the best scientists have agreed on. It is not cast in stone and it contains errors and it often changes. No problem, since in the long run the junk is discarded and the stuff that stands decades or centuries of testing is what survives. On the other hand, the only YEC stuff that survives in the long run is what is based on their own narrow interpretation of the Bible. Thus, their "science" is pure religious interpretation.
YECs tend to pick out certain anomalies in geological data and claim that these anomalies disprove great masses of non-anomalous data -- as if the exceptions should provide a rule rather than the other way round. Yet they ALWAYS fail to deal with the far worse anomolies in their own notions.
For example, so-called "flood geology" says that virtually all of the earth's sediments were laid down a few thousand years ago in Noah's Flood. Thus, there should be no footprints in such sediments, since the animals who could have laid them were either dead or floating around in the flood. No way they could leave trackways. Yet such trackways are common in sediments. For example, I've seen pictures of dinosaur footprints in ancient sedimentary rock from several parts of the Rocky Mountains, from British Columbia and Colorado. The layers were upturned at about a 40 degree angle. Can YECs explain how drowning animals could leave such trackways in sediments being laid down under hundreds or thousands of meters of floodwater? Can they explain how such tracks in such sediments could turn to solid rock, be upturned and then massively eroded in just a few thousand years? No. You'll never find even an attempt at explanation, because there is none from the YEC standpoint.
Here's another one: YECs claim that ALL of the earth's coal deposits are simply masses of vegetation that were put in place by Noah's Flood, after having been smashed together in swirling floodwaters. Thus, there could not possibly be animal tracks in coal beds, since all animals would have been dead by the time the masses of vegetation sank and were covered. Yet in certain coal mines in the American Southwest the miners have dug out a seam of coal, leaving exposed in the roof the underside of tree trunks, around which are the footprints of large dinosaurs. It looks like the dinosaurs were standing at the base of the tree browsing the leaves. This kind of discovery completely blows away the claims of "flood geology", and so the YECs completely ignore it. They know perfectly well that attempts at explaining by YECism leads to claims so ludicrous that even they can't conscientiously support them.
The above information can be found in greater detail at the talk.origins website. If you absorb what's there, you'll find that virtually every YEC claim has been debunked. The problem then becomes, Why do YECs completely ignore the debunkings and dumbly repeat and repeat and repeat that which has been debunked? The same reason the Jehovah's Witness leadership does the same thing: they know that a large fraction of those who want to believe the fairy tales, those who are too lazy or too stupid to look for themselves, those who want their ears tickled by pretty lies, will fail to look for themselves. Such people will continue looking to their religious teachers for the information, not caring what they're given as long as it makes them feel good. I suppose if that's what some people want, then fine, but that's not what thinking people ought to do.
AlanF