"Challenged" doesn't mean "disproved". It doesn't even mean that if there are errors they are in the direction you want. The point is, if there is such a big error in carbon dating why doesn't it show up in dendrochronology ? Never mind the other studies into calibrating C14 dating.
So lets sum it up.
You're relying on a dubious creationist paper to support "accelerated radioactive decay" while the wieght of the data shows no such effect.
You're relying on Rohl's dodgy chronology to shift things about in Egypt.
You're relying on Baumgardner's dodgy "CPT" hypothesis - or a variant of it to try to explain some geology.
Compared to these dendrochronology is very solid and reliable.