I consider this a very interesting discussion. Leolaia and ninja_matty69, you present a lot of compelling arguments on which I had to think about. ninja_matty69, your post of about 3 hours ago is epic. It also reiterates for me a plaguing question. I once asked an archaeologist I served on jury duty with how accurate C14 dating was. I mentioned my concern about how the carbon got into the specimen in the first place, especially in formerly living organisms (not just layers of rock). I asked how we were able to determine if the C14 being measured was the C14 absorbed while the tree was alive or if the C14 seeped into the tree years later after it fell and was inundated with water and C14-laden air or was deposited along with other minerals in some dinosaur bone before either was petrified. That concerned me because we know that C14 is produced in the air in different concentrations throughout the years, depending on solar activity and weather conditions. Her answer was: "I'm sure they calibrate that somehow."
Well needless to say, that was not a very satisfying answer. The only thing that is for sure about C14 is that it has a specific rate of decay or half life. What I've gathered from the discussion so far is that, while C14 dating is not meant to be completely accurate (given the percentage variances in the way it's calibrated) and serves only as a ballpark marker, we do make assumptions about how it's calibrated (that the C14 absorbed must have been constant or at least the same as in other sites tested; that the sample tested is uniform compared to the rest of the object being tested; that the percentage variance in different objects tested or the average of different readings is preferable than a single reading that can be accurately established. (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) I'm not saying that we (especially scientists) don't have the leniency to make those assumptions. However, if we do, we need to be willing to concede that the reading is less than 100% accurate (even if it's just close enough) or that it may be sufficiently wrong to not count.
Leolaia, I think your citation of ninja_matty69's reference to the global flood might be a bit misplaced. The key word is "IF". I hope ninja_matty69 is not asserting to the Biblical flood as an actual occurrence, even though it serves as a good scenario for what is believed is a representation of major historical floods (though not global) throughout history. The point is that if there was a significant "cloud cover" in our atmosphere (something that is also scientifically suggested at different times in our geological history), the C14 rate would have been different and would have affected samples greatly and the flooding might well have contaminated a lot of specimens.
Please carry on. I know next to nothing about this subject and would like more information. Yet, to refer to one of the original arguments and assertions regarding biblical history, I'm surprised no one has mentioned (unless I missed it) the newest references regarding the likely history of the Hebrews and why they forged (created and faked) an account (the old testament) to obscure their humble beginnings and add to their own legitimacy. One recent investigation depicts Israel as an "intellectual construct". It also points to other "cigarette-sized" scrolls found (beside the Dead Sea scrolls), which indicate sufficient differences in "old testament" accounts to signal the lore and poetic origins of the Old Testament. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html)
In addition, there are other indications that the ancient Hebrews did and continued to worship multiple gods after a time when the Biblical account suggests otherwise. The evidence presented in the Nova show "Quest for Salomon's Mines" suggest the beginnings of the Hebrews in the desert cauldron of the Dead Sea Rift Valley. I like that a more accurate picture is emerging from these discoveries that put the legitimacy of unconfirmed writings in the proper light.