Hey, where’d everybody go?
*chirp, chirp, chirp......*
What you and your chortling buddies overlook, in your zeal to nitpick fragments of the evidence Coyoteman referred to, is that the various lines of evidence come together to support each other’s dates. Dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating, and historical information all give the same results: tree rings show signs of frost damage that correlate with volcanic eruptions; radiocarbon dating of material (trees, mud) associated with evidence of volcanic eruptions points to the same time frame as the tree rings; historical accounts of darkened skies are from the same time as the eruption. You need all these techniques to not only be wrong, but be wrong in precisely the same way by precisely the same amount, for your criticisms to hold water.
Meanwhile, you need to postulate weather conditions that are different from what we see today but are just different enough to cause trees to produce extra tree rings in some (but not all) years, or some unspecified climatic condition that changed how much C-14 was produced, to explain why the experimental results are wrong. You don’t offer evidence for those changes—you just say “what if?” And again, to support any particular date for the flood, these two unrelated measurements have to be corrected by exactly the same amount—what a coincidence!
And if you’re right, we’re apparently the victims of some huge practical joke played by the Creator, who fiddled around with weather patterns and cosmic rays just enough to fool us into thinking things are older than they really are. That’s the unlikeliest part of your whole scenario.