Well I did advise you to look into the facts, so we must include that either you have arrogantly refused to do so - assuming that the facts have to agree with your beliefs or that you know that much of what you have written is false.
For a start considerable work has gone into calibrating carbon dating. The scientists who use carbon dating KNOW that the ratio of C14 to C12 is NOT constant, because the cosmic ray bombardment that produces C14 is not constant. Changes in the production rate cause changes in the ratio. So the scientists have used objects of known date - most importantly wood samples dated by dendrochronology to determine the actual ratios in the past. This goes back around 10,000 years.
Other methods - while not as reliable (such as using material retrieved from varves) - have pushed the period for which we have got a good idea of he C14/C12 ratio even further back.
Your various speculatiosn are therefore already refuted.
As for the "embarassments"
1) Contamination frequently produces measurements arounfd the limits of the techniques in use. This accounts for those "errors'
2) The marine carbon reservoir has a lower C14/C12 ratio than the atmosphere. Any life that derives a significant amount of it's carbon from the marine reservoir will appear to be too old if it is dated wihtout taking that into account.
So none of your "embarassments" are a problem at all.
I note also that you do not supply dates with your references. Is it because they are old and you wish to conceal that fact ? Or because you obtained them from a secondary source which did not give the dates either ? If the latter it would be better to admit that you have not read the original and that you found the material somewhere else.