That states that the transition to a calibrated or calender date is even less precise and especially where the calibration curve flattens out. And even if the calibration curve is being continuously refined on the basis of new data gathered from tree rings and coral, what can they do to help us date preflood things if they are from after the flood and any corresponding change within the atmosphere that would have occurred from it?
C14 dating does not presume to cast any doubt on the flood. It takes into account everything we can find, from every source, about the age of things, and incorporates that into it's own theories to better calibrate it's own systems. It does not exist in isolation, and new discoveries based on all of the other scientific fields which have relevance to C14 calibration, by the very nature of scientific method, have to be considered when we continually try to improve that calibration.
Do you believe that the devil could build an explanation for the entire natural laws, with the agenda that we want to discount real evidence of something, and that ALL scientists from all over the world in every culture could repeat the experiments, that all of those scientists could question the validity of any assumptions within those experiments, and that system could be found to be consistent within certain admitted uncertainty margins (necessary more due to the nature of experimentation and inaccuracy of measurements within a few percent in either direction depending on the equipment used)? Science holds itself up to the light, it says what the assumptions are, it says what the measurements are and it shows that the conclusion fits those assumptions and measurments. A christian scientist (a scientist who is christian rather than a follower of that particular movement) or an atheist scientist or a muslim scientist or a hindu scientist all operate on the same rules in this respect. That's exactly how it was found that C14 is not in equilibrium, and how we then came to use measurement from other scientific fields and recorded history to make the measurements fit reality more accurately.
As far as ice cores, layers you would find in them are not annual and you can get separate layers on your car in a snowstorm due to snow melting during the day and re-freezing at night. Consider this. There are ice cores at the South Pole and Greenland that have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet or that did as of recently. An aircraft crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and was excavated in 1990. It was under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. All of the ice could have accumulated in 4,400 years.
Again, this is a very simplistic argument that does not account for ALL of what science says. I won't spend too long on it, but just consider that as more and more layers are added on top, and more and more time passes, the bottom layers will be compressed and so the depth of a 1 year layer of ice sitting on top under no compression will be different to the depth of a 1 year layer of ice at the bottom. It also does not take into account that measurements about climate change over time, so that during some periods 263 feet of ice will accumulate in 48 years, and during other, drier periods maybe only 180 feet of ice will accumulate, and during wetter times maybe 450 feet of ice accumulates. By referencing what we know from other fields of study we can pretty accurately say that if you want to find an ice sample that was on the surface 10,000 years ago you need to go to somewhere between X depth and Y depth. You can then add in evidence about, for instance, large volcanic eruptions which would have trapped layers of dust in those ice layers (a notable one of these happened about 6,500-7,500 years ago (can't remember the exact figure) in Indonesia and the volcanic winter caused in Africa is thought to be the cause of humans migrating into the middle east)
Are you using the pool analogy or what have you to help explain why 14C would still be out of equilibrium if it took about 30,000 years for it to reach equilibrium? You might call on unforeseen events in the past that greatly effected the atmosphere. And what would the flood be to a mainstream view of history, if not that? Where is a dating method that does not assume both a starting point and constant rate of change based on a preconceived view of what happened in the past?
I'm saying that the theory that the earth is under 20-30,000 years old is assuming that only slow natural forces, with no remarkable events, have affected the C14 ratio since it started from a zero point. This is one claim I really don't understand when it comes from the same standpoint that then says "a really big flood happened". Either the accumulation and decay rates are building up naturally from a zero point with no remarkable events and a known rate of chage, and a clean and tidy straight line can be drawn back to 0 on the graph at the 20-30,000 year point, or floods etc have happened, and that line won't be straight, but will actually wobble around a great deal and could feasibly get back to the 0 point at any time you want to name depending on which events and how many you consider.
Besides which, since the assumptions of the very first person to find C14 dating methods were found to be false, even C14 dating methods do not do what you ask, in that they do not assume both a starting point and constant rate of change based on a preconceived view of what happened in the past. They assume that we know what the C14 ratio is today, and we know how various different things affect the C14 ratio because of other measurements taken of it in different places at different times and also in laboratories after, say, bombarding a sample with a known amount of extra radiation and then re-measuring it. We know of historical events and we try and factor them in as best we can, and we also look for independent verification from other scientific fields as to what the C14 ratio was at different times over the last 50,000 years. When those disagree with what our preconceptions are we don't just ignore them, but we build them into modifications in the calibration curve in a constant process to make it more and more accurate.
There's much against me trying to convince anyone of what I believe. To believe it would be rejecting a general worldview of what occurred that's basically held by all public education systems and mainstream media as a whole.
Not quite, to believe it would be rejecting a world view, consistently backed up by continuous measurement, and which in it's very nature allows anyone to question any assumption made. Science does not say "because we say so", it says "we think this is true based on thousands of measurements, but if someone comes up with a new theory or assumption that fits all of the evidence better we are bound by our own rules to modify our assumptions". Compare that to a book (and that could be the bible, the torah, the qu'ran or any other scriptural source from any religion) that says "this is right because we said so, and any theories that fit the world better are wrong because the devil got in there somehow and changed things to be exactly consistent with his great lie"
As for all the stuff about freemasonry, did they also influnce Chinese scientists from before Christ was born, who were already doing some fairly complex science, and whose measurements and theories have been recorded and which we have access to? Did they also influence middle-eastern scientists, again from pre-Christian times, that did experiments and recorded their observations, some of which have survived to the present day (and those people were the ones who came up with our modern understanding of mathematical systems for a large part)? Did they influence both the ancient egyptians and native south americans, who we can observe were using a lot of the same scientific assumptions and principles when doing things like building pyramids, despite there being shown to be a very low (effectively zero) probability of any contact between those two cultures?
What is more likely, that every single person, including devout christians, can make independent measurments to confirm or deny science's claims at any time, and can question it's assumptions, and that the devil can deceive and mislead every single one of them every time in a totally consistent way to build up a fake system as detailed and complex as our understanding of natural law, or that our understanding of natural law is the best explanation we have of the truth about empirical matters, and the scriptural books, which exist in isolation and do not offer any independent confirmation, or indeed any way for independent confirmation to even be possible, are parables and metaphors, which can still contain potentially great moral and spiritual guidance, but are not reliable or verifiable accounts of empirical facts such as the age of the earth or whatever?
Also effectively if the devil has made the flawed explanation for natural law to be entirely consistent with every experiment in every field of science, then isn't that effectively the same thing as it being natural law anyway. If he made a system that consistently explains and predicts everything we can measure, then the devil's system IS natural law by definition. Except that God was the one who (allegedly) made the universe. Wouldn't it be an equally likely thing under your belief that the devil is the good one who made everything, and God was the evil thing that succeeded in his PR efforts a lot better (he is after all, not bound by the rules like the good guy would be and is able to lie and deceive to win more followers) and now uses his propaganda to twist and turn people from the truth, and stir hatred amongst men, and sow the seeds of our destruction? Given the levels of religious intolerance over the centuries that seems to me, if anything, a more likely proposition than that scripture comes from the all loving good guy.
- it's a SWASTIKA. 
