Circular reasoning of carbon dating
Geochronologists do not claim that radiometric dating is foolproof (no scientific method is), but it does work reliably for most samples.
It is these highly consistent and reliable samples, rather than the tricky ones, that have to be falsified for "young Earth" theories to have any scientific plausibility, not to mention the need to falsify huge amounts of evidence from other techniques.
It can't float in mid-air, particularly if the material involved is sand, mud, or molten rock.
The principle of superposition therefore has a clear implication for the age of a vertical succession of strata.
However, note that because of the "principle of cross-cutting relationships", careful examination of the contact between the cave infill and the surrounding rock will reveal the true relative age relationships, as will the "principle of inclusion" if fragments of the surrounding rock are found within the infill.
Cave deposits also often have distinctive structures of their own (e.g., spelothems like stalactites and stalagmites), so it is not likely that someone could mistake them for a successional sequence of rock units. Each of them is a testable hypothesis about the relationships between rock units and their characteristics.
To get to that point, there is also a historical discussion and description of non-radiometric dating methods.For example, the principle of superposition is based, fundamentally, on gravity.In order for a layer of material to be deposited, something has to be beneath it to support it.Many other indicators are commonly present, including ones that can even tell you the angle of the depositional surface at the time ("geopetal structures"), "assuming" that gravity was "down" at the time, which isn't much of an assumption :-).In more complicated situations, like in a mountain belt, there are often faults, folds, and other structural complications that have deformed and "chopped up" the original stratigraphy.