I am not sure if you are still interested to read this, but since your responders seem to be all anti-Kent Hovind and Creationism, I thought I would try to show his reasoning based on objective scientific evidence.
In geology, much study has been done on rock erosion. For instance, University of Texas has a report from an analysis of 3,770 erosion-pin measurements between 1978 to 1983 which on average gave a net erosion rate of 0.14 cm (1.4mm) a year. Measurements of-course were taken of different kinds of rocks. But without getting bogged down into details, fact is this gives a good figure to work from. Over a thousand years, this works out at the rock would erodde 1.4m. over a million years, 1,400m.
If rocks erode, anything on the surface will naturally disappear (plants, sealife, ferns, etc.). So, how can dinosaur footprints survive 65-250 million years? Atheist scientists delude themselves to believe rocks after rocks keep shielding these footprint rocks.
The second one is the discovery of sock tissue in dinosaur bones.
Again, blood and DNA and soft tissue immediately harden and disintegrate immediate the creature dies. But it doesn’t matter what, atheists refuse to permit the idea that this means the creature died only thousands of years ago, not millions.
The third brief reply is to do with DNA. It simply is not possible to argue evolutionary processes made DNA molecules. There is too many facts such as the complex but inherent neat shape and balanced electrostatic atomic bonds, and coding of the bases to explain the systems approach of a DNA molecule. Junk DNA which atheists claimed were in the DNA molecule, turned out to be functional. So a basic atheist evolutionary premise has been disproved.
The fourth one is the nature of life. It simply cannot be created. All - all experiments on living tissues are on already living things. Cannot make a molecule come alive.
The fifth is to do with astronomy. It is a false claim that stars get made over millions of years because cannot make a star from star dust. By definition these do not have the energy required to constitute a star. So where does the energy come from?
I will have to leave it at that. Atheist scientists will of-course disagree. Ask them to disprove my claims in the lab. Make a protein molecule come alive from mere amino acids!