It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by glitch88
reply to post by OldThinker
No emotion here. Just stating the facts and wondering what you are going to say to dismiss it like you did with all the other examples people have given you.
Why Aren't Earth's Oldest Trees Older?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
The sheer girth of certain ancient, wizened trees can take one’s breath away. Wired Science recently featured a collection of images of some of earth’s oldest trees. Although the age estimates given for these antique specimens vary from a few to tens of thousands of years, the majority of them are consistent with a biblical timeframe for earth history.
Wired Science compiled the images and information on 12 ancient, still-living trees.1 Of these, two are “clonal trees,” which were not seeded but presumably sprouted from underground offshoots of a now-lost original tree. Clonal tree ages are estimated based on presumed rates of outward spreading.
The other ten trees in the series were dated by extrapolating growth estimates back into the past or by counting their tree rings. Tree-ring dating can be done without cutting down the tree by use of a specialized coring device that removes a slender cylinder of wood from the tree’s interior.
Of the trees—which are located around the globe, from Iran to New Zealand, from Chile to Wales, and even Japan—the oldest individual still-living tree is in California. Appropriately nicknamed Methuselah, the hardy bristlecone pine from the dry and salty high elevation of Inyo National Forest is in a protected area to discourage visitors and vandalism.
Wired Science stated that Methuselah was 4,765 years old, but Edmund Schulman, the pioneering scientist in determining the age of trees, dated Methuselah by “cross-dating” (ring-counting) it at 4,789 rings.2 An online gymnosperm database states that this age was most likely determined in 1957, which would make the tree 4,842 years old in 2010.
Why is Methuselah, or any other long-living tree, not a great deal older than this if the earth itself is millions of years old? Indeed, Schulman asked regarding California’s majestic giant sequoias, which he cross-dated at just over three millennia, “Does this mean that shortly preceding 3275 years ago all the then living giant sequoias were wiped out by some catastrophe?”3
And how reliable is cross-dating when a variety of dates can be determined for the same tree? Tree growth rings do not always indicate annual cycles. Factors like weather can cause trees to form multiple rings in one year. In the four seasons of the northern hemisphere, spring growth accounts for a new ring. But tropical trees add a new ring of growth whenever conditions are favorable, which can occur more than once in a year. And although the region of California that hosts bristlecones is arid today, it is possible that during the Ice Age it was much less so.4,5
If Methuselah sprouted at that time, then some of its earlier rings may have formed in only a few years. Another cause of “multiplicity”—when trees build more than one ring per year—is that bristlecone pines have been observed forming a new ring with a simulated mid-season drought.6 Thus, a two-week dry spell followed by watering can cause a tree to shut down and then re-establish growth, mimicking a “winter” season’s ring.
So, cross-dating requires making assumptions about the past, as do all historical investigations based on natural processes. Since the main assumption of annual ring growth has been shown to be false in certain cases, this method can only provide an approximate age. The uncertainty of dating even such directly observable phenomena as still-living trees is reflected by the wide date ranges provided for some the trees featured in Wired Science.
While the differences between cross-dated tree ages and biblical chronology can be easily accounted for with ring-generating factors other than seasons, the differences between the trees’ estimated ages and evolutionary time are unbridgeable. The very oldest known tree better fits a biblical age for the earth of thousands, not millions, of years.
Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by OldThinker
That is not the point, nor does it matter how many trees are that old. the point is, this is finished, we have proved you wrong, so you can stop spwing your theory of young earth. Isn't that the whole point? Of young earth theory? well, it has been proven wrong, no need for any more comments
Originally posted by Mizzijr
I guess my last post was ignored lol.
Originally posted by cluckerspud
How can this thread be 6 pages long ....
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by MrXYZ
Yea, sorry, Mr XYZ...how are you?
I've been a little busy...
You response about rotting trees makes sense to me...good point!
Now what about only 1 tree left...just one?
Originally posted by OldThinker
Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by OldThinker
That is not the point, nor does it matter how many trees are that old. the point is, this is finished, we have proved you wrong, so you can stop spwing your theory of young earth. Isn't that the whole point? Of young earth theory? well, it has been proven wrong, no need for any more comments
Readers please look up a few posts and notice a great follow-up question I asked mr10K about statistical concept of anomalies and the supposed 800,000 yr old system and notice his response ignoring me as he has accused me many times...and diverts the discussion to me puushing the young earth which i certainly have not...this is what happens many when a non-believer is confronted with someone who doesn't back down... mr10K you brought the fight friend...OT will not fight with you, nor back down...you failed to answer my rebuttal...that cool..many don't...but diverting and the "no more comments" thing is cowardly...but it was fun engaging you when you were here..God bless!
Originally posted by mr10k
For the last time OP, there isn't just one, there are 47,000 trees.
Originally posted by OldThinker
Originally posted by mr10k
For the last time OP, there isn't just one, there are 47,000 trees.
How many.....root systems?
ONE
The 105-acre colony is made of genetically identical trees, called stems, connected by a single root system
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by MrXYZ
Yea, sorry, Mr XYZ...how are you?
I've been a little busy...
You response about rotting trees makes sense to me...good point!
Now what about only 1 tree left...just one?
There you go!
I think the fact that we found trees that are 8 million years old (!!!) should put this thread to rest
Pretty sure this should answer your question...well, kind of...by showing you that your "no tree over 10k years old" premise is faulty.