There is a skeleton from southern Alaska, dated to just over 10,000 years old. The mtDNA pattern is identical to extant local tribes, not a Middle Eastern pattern.
This suggests no break at the date ascribed to the global flood (ca. 2350 BC) and no replacement of earlier mtDNA patterns with the mtDNA of survivors of a global flood. (There are other examples of mtDNA continuity from the western US as well.)
Either the dating of the mtDNA from the Alaskan sample (10,000 years) is incorrect, or the dating of the Flood (~2350 BC, referenced by Ussher, Newton, Kepler, et al) is incorrect.
I'm not dogmatic about whether the Flood occurred in 2350 BC, or 5000 BC (a date derived if one takes the 'begats' in Genesis 11 to mean generational time periods, and not direct father/son relationships) or some time in between, but I have no problem rejecting the 10,000 year mtDNA date.
Translation: My mind is made up. I will ignore any evidence that comes along.
Take a look at the following passage:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7; emphasis added].St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.
I don't worship Augustine, nor consider his writings to be infallible, nonetheless its interesting that you reference one of his quotes. Augustine also believed in a 'young' (i.e., not millions of years old) earth. He objected to 6 days of creation because he 'felt' it besmirched God's power and ability.
Since you appear to be a follower of Augustine perhaps we could agree on the young age of the earth, and focus our debate on whether God created the earth in one day or six...