And for those of you that don't believe in radiocarbon dating, perhaps you'd be interested to know that it calibrates perfectly to the Dendrochronological clock (that stretches back some 11,000 years)...
This, and the comments that Snowolf made, are (IMO anyway) the biggest problem with creationist arguments. Creationists tend to take a reductionist view of arguments, i.e. everything's a two-horse race and it's all me or thee. It's evolution or creationism, it's christianity or atheism, it's carbon-14 or nothing, etc. The problem is, it's almost never
so simple. For instance, the circular argument posted in that vid near the beginning of this thread (bible is infallible because it's the word of god, it's the word of god because it says so, and you have to accept that because it's infallible [loop] ). The problem with this argument is that I can prove the Truth of Islam, Hinduism, and any other religion that has a "holy book". You could even make a pretty good argument for religions with only verbal traditions using the same "inspired by [insert deity here]" argument. So now the xians have the additional problem of proving that THEIR circular argument is right while the other
religions' circular arguments are nonsense.
With "proofs" like carbon-14, they forget that there are many different pieces of evidence that not only point to an old universe, but also corroborate each other. Various radioactive dating techniques corroborate each other, and agree with dendrochronology, ice core samples from the arctic, sediment samples from the bottom of the ocean, DNA ancestry tracing, language evolution, magnetic fossilization in lava flows, etc, probably many more than I can think of while sitting here recovering from work.
Then there's the historical problems: No record whatsoever of the Jews in Egypt, or of all the firstborn male Egyptians dying; no evidence of ten thousand-odd hebrews wandering the desert for 40 years; no evidence of the Flood; Archeological evidence that indicates that the Hebrews didn't defeat the Canaanites, but are
the Canaanites, and so on.
Anyway, the point is, it's one thing to take it on faith (which I believe is the whole point according to JC) and another to try to present it as a rigorously defensible theory.