and we'll just ignore that idea that the equilibrium he's talking about would be a naturally occurring level, and we'll just ignore the idea that maybe there's another reason for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, like say, oh i don't know, Mankind since the industrial revolution?!?!

Wow, you have to give it to him though, he explained carbon dating rather well though. Though I don't share all of his same problems with carbon dating, I think it does help to speculate a little on the processes accurateness. One of the main problems with carbon dating is exactly what the previous post says though. Carbon levels most likely have always been in some state of flux. If they were always constant it would help benchmark carbon dating a wee bit better, but as it is, it starts with an arbitrary assumption that carbon levels have remained relatively close to the current average. Moreover, we don't have a way to show what the conditions of the atmosphere were at any other time than when we were alive to measure it.

'Nuff Said

Moving this video to lavoll's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter lavoll.

Ugh, Kent Hovind sets off my douche-dar.

That's the first time I've heard the flood cited in a statement to disprove radiocarbon dating. I bet Kent is right... I bet none of the scientists are taking that into consideration.

I also appreciate that Kent cited his information sources. I'm about to go read up on the research of "some people" and "one guy" right now.