This has caused many in the church to reevaluate the biblical creation account, specifically the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1.
With our focus on one particular form of radiometric dating—carbon dating—we will see that carbon dating strongly supports a young earth.
However, geologists know this, and would never try to prove that something is millions of years old based on carbon dating.
The major mistake Hovind makes in this article relates to his claim of equilibrium.
There are two reasons uncalibrated dates must be mentioned: 1) this prevents people from making up any number they please, and 2) it is for the sake of posterity, where future scientists can check the results and apply new ideas of calibration. Radiocarbon dates are affected by many outside factors.
The accuracy of the machines is not in question (especially modern ones, which are astoundingly accurate when properly zeroed in). But, any source of old carbon in the ancient environment can affect the amount of C-14 in a sample.
This "calibration" of the carbon clock is taken into account with every carbon dating that is performed.
Atoms are made up of much smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons.This does not mean that recalibration is bad, indeed it is necessary, but it should make one more soberly assess any reported dates as being tentative.The problem is that most people reporting on these issues fail to report the initial number along with the calibrated date. The Jericho controversy is soundly rooted in C-14 calibration.At some point, the amount being poured in, and the amount leaking out, will be the same, thus the water level will remain constant.The original claim about this process originated with Dr.Therefore, the basic question which Hovind is answering is no.