> The only problem with this story is that it supports the Biblical account of the flood
No, the only problem with this story is that there are literal mountains of evidence against it.
For starters, there are overlapping tree ring data going back about 12,000 years in Germany, where the carbon dates agree well with the observed counts of the tree rings, and over 8000 years in California. From the wikipedia Dendrochronology page: "A fully anchored and cross-matched oak and pine chronology in central Europe extends back 12,460 years, and an oak chronology goes back 7,429 years in Ireland ,and 6,939 years in England. The consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been supported through comparison of their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages. Another fully anchored chronology that extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California)." These tree rings have been corroborated with carbon-14 dates (each reinforces the other).
Likewise, there is a Japanese lake Suigetsu that has deposited annual layers of algae and diatoms, distinctly different in the summer and winter layers, that can be counted and measured with carbon-14 dates. This lake has over 45,000 annual layers that agree well with the corresponding carbon-14 dates.
I'd suggest reading not just sources that agree with a pre-conceived timeline, but also those that disagree. If approached without cherry-picking, I think you'll find that the overwhelming quantity of evidence for the timeline that scientists have established is persuasive. It is perfectly possible to be a person of faith without adhering to a literal approach to scripture. (Suggestion: perhaps the biblical flood account did happen, but it was a more localized event.)
