I agree with your first part about carbon dating. If carbon dating has been proven innaccurate, then why use it at all? If I gave you a computer that gave you three different answers to every question, would you use it? Of course not. The truth is radio carbon dating is not accurate past about a 500 year limit. And what they do not tell you is the lab that does the testing always asks how old you fell the object is before they "test" it.
In the case of the Kennewick Man several years ago three tests were done and the dating ranged from 3000 to 9000 years. Of course they chose the 9000 year date because it was the closest to what they had hoped it would be. How impressed are we by a test that is up to 300% inaccurate?
Brian, If you knew how corrupt the scientific community was and how much of it is based on grant monies and politics, you would pay little attention to their supposed "facts". When I lived in Oregon and read the Oregonian newspaper, they had a "Science" page every Thursday. Now, during a 1 year period in 1999 they printed three different articles on how "planets were formed". Each of these had completely incompatible theories:
-PLanets are formed by space dust collecting into a ball.
-PLanets are formed by liquid collecting into a ball (this theory is actually biblical. Shhh, don't tell them)
-Planets are formed by galactic "Sponges" that collect matter and eventually became shaped like a ball.
Each of these articles were worded as though they were proven facts. Just as the article about the "feathered fossil" that other scientists had identified as not feathers, but scales. Regardless, the "feather" theory, which was held by only two Oregon State Students, who saw the fossil through a glass case at a shopping mall, won out and within a year there was a picture of the "feathered flying reptile", which resembled a rat with "glider" wings, published in a children's dinosaur book. Now, this illustrated "flying rat" had a tail. Yet, in the article, the OSU two students made the comment that the fossil did not have a tail, but that they had hoped it had. BUt here is the kicker. The Oregonian printed the article with two photos of this fossil: one regular and one "close up". But even a cursory look revealed that it was in fact two completely different fossils, with the "feathers" pointing opposite directions! And the "feathers" on one fossil were smooth and bent at the top while the "feathers" on the other one were ridged and straight. Two photos of two completely different fossils being represented as two pictures of the same fossil!
There is so much more. But I think the point has been made.