No, I didn’t know that - thanks for pointing it out. Since I’d never heard of the guy, it’s not surprising I didn’t know he was in prison.
Nice to have hair ruffled by a passing whoosh!
There’s “linearization error”, but that doesn’t quite fit.
You should try using a log scale.
Kent Hovind strikes me as the type who when having problems completing a jigsaw, cuts off the connecting bits, to make things a bit easier.
Or just putting it up in its box and letting God handle the situation.
Could be hasty generalisation.
Not just things like this.
Look at how many idiots were using a couple of years of stock market increases, or worse, housing price increases, to extrapolate all kind of idiotic projections of value in future years.
Isn’t the current prevailing theory for the moon’s origin still the “giant impact” collision/capture hypothesis? In which case Hovind is right, after a fashion - there was a point at which the moon was within Earth’s atmosphere. 
Most of the Fundie-Americans I know are actually come to regard Hovind as an unreliable nutjob. Unfortunately Ben Stein’s Expelled is to them what Hovind used to be.
I once read in one of Jack Chick’s comic books that the fact Neil Armstrong’s foot only sank an inch or two into the Lunar surface, combined with the known rate at which the Lunar surface accumulates dust (from micrometeors precipitated from space), proves it’s a young Moon!
Apparently Chick has never noticed that when you walk on a beach, your foot only sinks an inch or two into the sand, but that doesn’t prove the sand is only an inch or two deep.
At least Hovind isn’t quite that retarded.
Jack Chick sources a fair deal of his creationist ‘facts’ straight from Hovind. Hovind has used the moon dust argument too… So maybe he is that retarded.
Damn bait and switch.
It’s taking a lot longer than we thought . . . 
It’s a favorite of young-earthers to extrapolate from current processes an age of the earth inconsistent with scientific fact.
I’ve found the easiest rebuttal is to simply point out that that must mean that particular avenue (salinity of the ocean, e.g… etc etc) must not be a good way to estimate the age of the earth. This is particularly effective if you have lined up a number of their similarly bogus calculations, all of which yield younger ages than the correct one…their problem is that the ages which their various methods yield are also entirely inconsistent with each other.
If it were the case that their various extrapolations all agreed with one another, they could make an argument that science is wrong. But since they all disagree with one another by orders of magnitude, it’s just easier to point out that the methods must not be useful ones for determining the age of the earth.