Carbon dating is not flawed
The shells of live freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results.
However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example.
It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.
The problem with freshwater clams arises because these organisms derive the carbon atoms which they use to build their shells from the water in their environment.
If this water is in contact with significant quantities of limestone, it will contain many carbon atoms from dissolved limestone.
Also, it does not coincide with what creationist scientists would currently anticipate based upon our understanding of the impact of the Flood on radiocarbon.
Long tree-ring chronologies are rare (there are only two that I am aware of which are of sufficient length to be of interest to radiocarbon) and difficult to construct.
They have been slowly built up by matching ring patterns between trees of different ages, both living and dead, from a given locality.
These two measures of time will only be the same if all of the assumptions which go into the conventional radiocarbon dating technique are valid.
Comparison of ancient, historically dated artifacts (from Egypt, for example) with their radiocarbon dates has revealed that radiocarbon years and calendar years are not the same even for the last 5,000 calendar years.