Kent Hovind

Just to be sure, this is not true. You are not allowed to (permanently) export any artefacts from any Near Eastern country (which is reasonable, given the history of "legit plundering" over much of the 19th and early 20th century by Western countries, the results of which fill the Louvre, BM and the likes). However, you are obviously allowed to study them (given that you have the proper excavation permits, which, for some reason, I doubt in this case); either in the field or in a laboratory in the country where you are working (artefacts are placed in storage in a museum or depot after they have been excavated, where they can be studied as well). Furthermore, it is usually possible to take samples out of the country for dating, chemical analysis etc. So if these researchers had the proper permits, nothing would have prevented them from providing proper evidence.

Simple. Because they wanted to see it: The best way to prove that there's wood inside the coral is to prove that there's wood inside the coral. And they didn't do that.

Of course they had good reason not to publicize further research. First of all because there wasn't any, and second, if they had done that research properly, it would have shown that they are just making stuff up. Anyway, as regards the landbridge, here's the bathymetry of the Gulf of Aqaba: No landbridge. The crossing site is at least 800m deep. I guess it must have been magically eroded then? But with that argument they could have crossed the Mariana Trench and it still wouldn't be a problem...