In 1964, when a living bristlecone pine tree in California was determined to be almost 5,000 years old, it gave Bible literalists a big scare. After all, literalists (young earthers) believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Was that bristlecone pine tree around for the “big flood?” Not quite: young earth adherents argue that that 5,000 year old tree must have been planted right after the waters receded. Maybe Noah himself came to California to plant it.
But now there’s a newly discovered tree that is even older than the bristlecone pine:
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – Scientists have found a cluster of spruces in the mountains in western Sweden which, at an age of 8,000 years, may be the world’s oldest living trees.
The hardy Norway spruces were found perched high on a mountain side where they have remained safe from recent dangers such as logging, but exposed to the harsh weather conditions of the mountain range that separates Norway and Sweden.
Carbon dating of the trees carried out at a laboratory in Miami, Florida, showed the oldest of them first set root about 8,000 years ago, making it the world’s oldest known living tree, Umea University Professor Leif Kullman said.
I’m trying to phrase this carefully, now:
This newly discovered living tree must have been planted prior to the creation of the universe!
I don’t quite know how this tree could have been floating around in space prior to the creation of the universe, because there wasn’t even any empty space “back then.” I wonder if it was ever watered prior to the creation of the universe . . . If that ancient tree that was the only thing in the universe fell over, would anyone hear it fall? Did God have a treehouse in that tree? If the tree was the only thing in the universe, how would it know which way to grow up? So many questions.
This unfortunate discovery of a very very old tree now forces our hands: It’s time to revise the Bible to indicate that the universe is more than 8,000 years old. That will fix things as long as we don’t discover any 9,000 year old trees and as long as we ignore all of the scientifically established methods for showing that the earth is actually billions of years old.
[Here is an explanation of why the young earth folks are absolutely wrong when they attack the validity of Carbon-14 dating and here’s an extensive list of reputable articles on radiometric dating]
Why do young earthers accept the science behind dating trees, but not fossils? I suspect this finding will just prompt them to finally bring their tree-denial in step with their fossil denial.
I don't know that Young Earthers actually accept the science behind dating trees generally, but I'm certain that they are more likely to accept dating methods when they are consistent with their literal readings of the Bible.
I'd bet that if the Carbon-14 tests had shown that the Shroud of Turin was 2,000 years old, there would have been a lot more Believers praising the great work of those great scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
YECs have a very simple answer to problems such as having a carbon-14 test result that predates the time they fix for The Creation: if *any* science contradicts their reading of the Bible, then that science is, by definition, wrong, and the scientists simply haven't yet recognized their error. To the extent that anyone believes the faulty science, they are simply sad examples of weak-minded non-believers who have been deceived by Satan. Once they drive out their demons and accept Jesus as their personal savior, they will realize their mistake and join the ranks of Young Earth Creationists.
Grumpy: I agree that the YECs disparage science whenever it is inconvenient. Therefore, they have no qualms about bashing carbon 14 dating if it were to show that a living thing were older than the 6,000 year age they pin on the universe.
What's cool about one of the best methods for determining the age of trees is that even the YEC's respect this "science." They've all done it in their backyards. You just count tree rings.
What are they going to do when they can actually see and count 8,000 rings? Are they going to bash mathematics? Are they going to say that the devil invented COUNTING?
God put the tree there to test our faith.
/sarcasm
Erich: "What are they going to do when they can actually see and count 8,000 rings?"
In my experience, the most common response to this dilemma (usually in the context of dinosaur bones) is that they were intentionally put there during the Creation. God's idea of a joke, I guess.
You state: "This newly discovered living tree must have been planted prior to the creation of the universe!"
I may be slow, but sorry, I don't get it. Who, exactly, are you saying planted it?
Please reply by posting a comment the with planters' name, address, and horticultural credentials (or attach CV).
Edgar's on the right path. Mostly they say that God put things like fossils and ancient stars and such there to test our faith – to see if you can see scientific evidence and maintain your biblical belief despite it.
You guys are really attacking a strawman here. Do you think that the Bible says that every animal was created at in its minimal form (eg. a zygote for humans, or a seed for trees), and had to grow from there? God created that tree partially grown, with 2000 rings already in it. *DUH*
To answer the question posted by HUH?: Erich was being sarcastic.
As regards Lucifer's comment, I've often heard Believers make that assertion concerning findings of science that contradict the Bible — viz., that God deliberately made fossils, mountain ranges, glacial valleys, volcanic islands, trees, distant galaxies, etc., all appear older than they really are merely to test our faith. The problem with that opinion is that the Bible makes it very clear that God is not a deceiver.
Dear "Huh?": I was writing in euphemism because I didn't want to needlessly alarm anyone. Grumpypilgrim was merely trying to give me some cover.
What I really believe is that this newly discovered 8,000 year old tree IS God. How could it be otherwise, given that this tree was around before the creation of the universe?
I suggest we go find that tree and try to communicate with it. This could be the start of a new religion with many branches.
Then again, maybe Pastor Barnum is correct . . .
Erich, tree worship is widespread (see e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_worship/), so you might be correct about that tree….
Erich: "I suggest we go find that tree and try to communicate with it. This could be the start of a new religion with many branches."
Somebody beat you to it. Lyrics from "Paint Your Wagon":
"I talk to the trees
But they do not listen to me …"
I took this photo of a tree today. It looked a bit wierd. Then it started talking to me. It started saying "The meaning of life is . . . " Then some birds landed on the tree and the tree got distracted and irritated and it stopped talking. Bummer.
<img src="http://dangerousintersection.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/tree-god.JPG" alt="tree-god.JPG" />
Pastor Barnum: if God did make the tree with 2000 rings, and plopped it down on earth fully formed, then we have to seriously doubt ring counting as a viable way of dating trees. We'd have to doubt it as much as creationists doubt carbon dating. But creationists don't seem to doubt ring counting as much as carbon dating. I suspect the real reason is because a physically observable set of rings is harder to explain away than some foreign carbon concept.
I have the answer! Chop down the trees – that'll solve everything!
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
If I'm not totally mistaken, the whole young earth idea isn't even in the bible. The idea of the earth being only 6,000 is fairly recent. Mostly in the 1800's. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth
Many of the beliefs held by today's fundie Christians are NOT EVEN IN THE BIBLE! Ya know like the RAPTURE? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture NOT IN THE BIBLE!
Sadly, this only goes to show that fundementalism does not equal truly being educated in one's own religion.
It might be good to cousult the sorce of this discussion, The Bible, God's Word.
Ecclesiastes3:11 ¶ He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
If God is the creator, then it would't it make sense the the creator is smarter and wiser than His creation? Who are we to question God?
Dexter: But what if Humans have created "God" in their own image and likeness? Then We should question our own Creator/Creation. We should question our own motivations for conjuring up an imaginary being and speaking "through Him," just like the old carnival man at Oz spoke through The Wizard of Oz.
Before you can even think about Bible quotes, you need to 1) confront the questions of whether there really is a Sentient All-knowing Being out there (versus whether we are creating Him just like we've created Santa Claus) and 2) ask whether the Bible is a work of this "God" or rather, whether it is a document written by fallible men.
You might be interested in Bart Ehrman's research regarding the origin of the Bible. Check out this post on Ehrman: http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/10/22/who-c…
That's enough,
Slice the tree up and start counting rings, when you get to about 4 thousands you'll have to look between the lines for the other 4 thousand.
Such a shame to have to kill a tree you guys think is 8,000 years old.
Karl: They core a living tree to count its rings, not cut it down. Much like the way they have drilled hundreds of thousands of holes across the landscape to know where what layers are how far down. Can you say, "Exploratory Drilling" or "United States Geological Survey"?
No tree can have 8000 rings in one trunk.
The climatologists have pieced together a patchy record of what they believe the tree did during the time they propose it to have been alive, based upon the carbon dating of dead trunk and root materials.
It has undoubtedly survived ravage after ravage of cold weather and glaciers that removed it trunks, but there is no complete record of some continuous 8000 rings that can be put together without some driving carbon 14 evidence to fuel the stretch. There are likely many gaps in the growth because of the times when this tree was actually frozen and unable to do anything but wait for the ice to melt.
I believe the entire northern reaches of the globe were under ice just several days after the start of the flood, so the trees may very well from before the flood, that doesn't mean it is the 8000 years it is claimed to be.
Notice, how the wording "may be the oldest" is used but the cut and dry age of 8,000 years for the carbon dating is very certain and a reliable extrapolation in the dating methodology.
The tree is definitely old and may date from the earliest dawn of anything that was alive on the planet. My question is why aren't there more trees like this one around if the processes that have changed our planet have been uniformitarian and slow gradual processes.
If this trees has survived across the flood devastation, it must be an ample clue to that region of the world condition during the flood – frozen waters – not warm tropical flood waters.
Karl: Why don't you put the same amount of skepticism toward A) scientific claims and B) the "Good Book"? It might be refreshing for you. It might be fun for you to look at evidence without pre-conceived notions.
Truly, every discussion at this site is a severely handicapped race for you, with religious claims being given a huge head start over the careful work of scientists
Karl wrote: "No tree can have 8000 rings in one trunk."
That's probably true, Karl, but it isn't how the process works. Dendochronologists reach back in time by coring a wide variety of trees, including many old, dead trees and timbers used in old buildings. Then they compare the growth rings on the various trees to see if the ring patterns match, indicating that the life spans of the trees overlap. For example, if one tree lived from the year 1000 c.e. to the year 1600 c.e., and another tree lived from the year 1500 c.e. to the year 2000 c.e., then the trees will have a matching ring pattern for the years they shared in common; i.e., 1500 c.e. to 1600 c.e. If the more recent tree was cut in the year 2000 c.e., then the ring record will date back 1000 years even though neither tree is more than 600 years old. The key is to find trees which would have experienced the same climate, because that's what permits the matching ring patterns from different trees to be positively correlated. This is typically satisfied by using trees from the same geographic location.
what i wanna know is why dumb ass people write articles about how God or the Bible doesn't exist. Why do u attack on what people believe why must u be a total dick. and let us believe what we want to. I mean ive seen it all know ur talking about an age of a tree. I see what your trying to prove but why? to be a complete dick to people that believe in a good life to walk with God to make this world a better place to go to country to country helping starving people? and teach them a good life. See your the reason why our world sucks so bad because you sit there and post stuff about a tree and mock what we believe… We have faith and u think a stupid old tree is gonna ruin faith your stupid as your vegetable. Stop attacking Christians because we wanna live a better life how about get a life and go out instead of typing random stuff on the computer…
Is this "trisha" pretending to be "nova," or is it "nova" pretending to be "trisha"?