I argue no such thing. Again, I go back to intrepration of the data and our understanding of how things "should" work. I genuinely believe that we don't even know what we don't know about genetics and dating.
s/intrepration/interpretation/
So basically, when you say that historic events in the Bible aren't disproven, what you really mean is that you are content to reject any scientific investigation or conclusion that appears to reject the results that you would like to see. No-one who hasn't signed up to the inerrancy of the bible has the slightest difficulty with dating methods (multiply cross-confirmed with numerous other data). The geologists who first decided that there was no global flood *were* biblical creationists, and they were surprised by their own findings. No evidence has appeared since to contradict them.
Your point about interpretation is an oft-repeated fallacy of those who reject the findings of science. Science isn't about interpretation. Interpretation of observations to form a hypothesis is the first stage in a long road that leads to theory. Critically theories have to make successful predictions of as-yet unmade observations. Standard scientific theories in the fields of astronomy/physics/geology/paleontology/genetics/geography/archeology/cosmology all falsify YEC, and they *don't* just rest on interpretation of the data. They have made successful predictions which had no reason to come true unless the theories were correct.