One point lost by Bill Nye in the recent debate with Ken Ham was the repeated assertion that YEC researchers had dated fossil wood ~1,000 times younger than the basalt in which it was encased.
If the assertion holds, then radiometric dating methods to which Bill Nye appeals as evidence for an old Earth are potentially flawed.
The production rate of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere depends on the magnetic field strength, for example, of the Earth and our sun.
The YEC can argue, therefore, that prior to the flood, the relative abundance of 14C was much lower than today.
When this assumption is used, the results are reported as "radiocarbon years before present".
It is important to distinguish between "radiocarbon years" and "calendar years", because we know that the relative concentration of 14C does indeed change over time.
In 1993, this caution was even more applicable, which is why many important geological studies have been updated in recent years from fresh samples analyzed with better equipment.
In 1993, several samples of charred and petrified wood were collected during construction of a mining ventilation shaft in central Queensland.
The wood samples were seemingly well preserved inside the lava flow that encased them. The 24-page publication is rather verbose, reading more like a drawn-out lab report than a scientific study, but it contains all the details necessary to assess the feasibility of Dr. Wait, if the fossil wood and basalt are both older than 6,000 years, doesn't Ken Ham undermine his own position by citing this study?
He reports the results as follows: You should notice three features immediately from this table that warrant suspicion of Dr.
Snelling's interpretation: First, all of these ages are close to the practical limit of radiocarbon dating.