With a half-life of only 5730 years, carbon-14 dating has nothing to do with dating the geological ages! 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.
Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively.
The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.
There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested.
For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old.
the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here.
Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past.
It's just one of the tricks that have been used to make the work a little more precise. I believe he has confused the use of index fossils with evolution.
One creationist editor, who is more mellow than his unfortunate statement suggests, phrased the argument thus: Unfortunately the geologists date the rocks as the paleontologists tell them to. That passage might have come out of one of Henry Morris' books, except that Morris usually avoids crude slander. Hovind is not aware of the fact that by 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly geologists.
Always the starting time of the ‘clock’ has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time.
Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
Due to the existence of many and varied religious beliefs and due to varied attempts to make creationism into something "scientific", creationism takes many forms.