He starts out with an explanation of what carbon dating is, which proves to be adequate for this discussion.
The only notable exception is that he says carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. As technologies advance, so does our ability to detect the amount of C-14 in a sample.
Sometimes, it is near zero, other times it is greatly increased.
Therefore over time, we could have reached equilibrium many times. Since the rate of C-14 production is far from constant, the theory that the earth is less than 30,000 years old based on equilibrium is unreliable.
Scientists know that it is not, and correct for this. There is no data to indicate otherwise, and Hovind presents none.
He does give an illustration of a candle burning, saying it would be like assuming the candle always burned at the same rate.
There are many periods of decreasing C-14, which disproves his theory that the earth is young based on C-14 equilibrium.
Carbon dating cannot prove that something is millions of years old.
He says "Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions.
They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant." Remember the tree-ring data..tells us how much carbon-14 was in the atmosphere at a given time.
For example, techniques based on isotopes with half lives in the thousands of years, such as Carbon-14, cannot be used to date materials that have ages on the order of billions of years, as the detectable amounts of the radioactive atoms and their decayed daughter isotopes will be too small to measure within the uncertainty of the instruments.
One of the most widely used and well-known absolute dating techniques is carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating, which is used to date organic remains.