Well, I'll add in a few bits here.
First of all, IMO the folks trying to debunk carbon dating, are taking the wrong approach. If this place was created by an all powerful being, why exactly could it not have been created with all the evolutionary support structure that we have discovered, including carbon14 decayed to specific points already?
Second, complaining about carbon14 dating is just plain silly. What about the same methods using rubidium, thorium, potassium, argon, and uranium? The basic premise is that carbon14 dating might contradict the bible... and the fact is, it really doesn't. Even scientists who use it agree that Carbon14 dating is only accurate back about 70k years, due to it's relatively short half life. Some of those other elements, however, are the real sticklers... their half lives stretch up to nearly 50 billion years.
Furthermore, the other big problem is the fossil record. Dig into this a bit, and you'll find fossils clearly come in age layers, similar around the world, and proven thousands of times over by different people. It's a relatively simple operation to calculate how many living things were required to produce the fossils we have found ... and the math doesn't work, there's no way they could all fit on the planet in a short time frame. There just isn't enough room!
As for decent websites, those are few and far between, and trying to sort out what is run by who is a tough thing to do. As a general rule, the sites trying to disprove it are run by the church or it's supporters. The far fewer sites trying to validate it are run by the scientific community or it's supporters. The only way to make an educated decision is to read a bunch of both, note their debate points, and compare which ones are explained by their opponent.
My biggest complaint against the pro-christian sites is their accusation that the scientists involved are ignoring conflicting evidence. It's not in a scientist's nature to ignore evidence, and their system of peer review is designed to emphasize flaws that would invalidate a theory. There are, of course, exceptions to this, where greed or some other motivation becomes a controlling factor, however, there are a *lot* of scientists, and the chances of all of them (or even most!) being motivated to lie the same way is somewhere between slim and none.
Cliffs: IMO, there's no evidence that carbon14 dating is flawed, and this has no bearing on the religious debate anyway.
