How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
by Dave E. Matson
Copyright © 1994-2002

Dr. Hovind: The assumption that the geologic column is a base from which to calibrate the C-14 dates is not wise.

With a half-life of only 5730 years, carbon-14 dating has nothing to do with dating the geological ages! Whether by sloppiness or gross ignorance, Dr. Hovind is confusing the carbon-14 "clock" with other radiometric "clocks."

The only thing in the geologic record which has anything to do with calibrating carbon-14 dating is the coal from the Carboniferous Period. Being ancient, the C-14 content has long since decayed away and that makes it useful in "zeroing" laboratory instruments. It's just one of the tricks that have been used to make the work a little more precise.

For an alternative "creation" view-point, see this post, when modern Science and Genesis, can be reconciled and harmonized... the truth speaks for itself.

They said it couldn't be done, but here it is, thanks to modern science and praise to God.     "The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)" Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991 Yes, finally, trees exactly as described in Genesis, before, and without sunlight. And no, it's not another lame hoax. (Short) and (Long). See, Prototaxites, Fossilized "Fruiting Fungi," 'Tree'.

Besides science discovering this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," Genesis does not mention flowers (Angiosperms), which supports Old Earth Evolution. How odd for "mere mythology".