The Earth is More than 6000 Years Old!

Even creationists have said that if you find something that’s alive now that’s over 6000 years old, it would prove to them that the Earth is at least that old.

Previously, the oldest tree in the world was thought to be a Bristlecone Pine in California, known as the Methuselah tree, at 4,840 years old (as of 2008).

It’s huge! But you can also date a tree not by its trunk, but by its root structure. And as The Log Blog reports, Swedish researchers have found a tree on Fulu Mountain that is over 9,000 years old! Although it looks puny because its trunk dies every few hundred years or so and it grows a new one, analysis of its root structure using carbon dating in Miami, FL, shows it to be nearly 10,000 years old. Here is the “little guy” nearing his 10,000th birthday:

This story actually got picked up by the BBC news as well. Why don’t American news companies report stuff like this? What, are we too busy with breaking news? In any case, now when you run across people who tell you that the Universe is 6,000 years old, you can disprove them by showing them a tree.

Comments

  1. #1 Scott
    April 25, 2008

    Anything that involves carbon dating is not going to convince a creationist.

  2. #2 Lucas
    April 25, 2008

    “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
    -George Carlin

    That is the simplest explanation to why the American media doesn’t bother with such discoveries.

  3. #3 Brian
    April 25, 2008

    This is interesting. I wonder if some coral reefs might also prove to be this old or older…

  4. #4 ethan
    April 25, 2008

    So if the Universe is 6,000 years old but this tree is pushing 10,000, does that mean it’s… older than dirt?

  5. #5 Amy
    April 26, 2008

    Older than dirt – funnnny
    I think that tree had a designer, therefore I have disproven your THEORY. =)

  6. #6 ethan
    April 26, 2008

    Amy,

    Sounds like you’ve been “teaching” again. Regardless of whether you think that tree was designed or not (and it wasn’t), it’s still over 6,000 years old. So at the very least, just knowing this tree exists forces you to change your beliefs if you want your beliefs to be consistent with the world.

    It would be like meeting a man who was 9,000 years old and told you about his life back then… you’d have a hard time convincing him that the world was younger than he was!

    Ethan

  7. #7 Tom
    October 17, 2010

    I think we should not limit our understanding based on the question of the age of the universe. Though the Bible is not clear on the age of the universe, it should be cleared that nowhere does it propose that it is just 6000 years old.

    I believe that the Creator created the universe billions of years ago. That put eternity into the equation. And eternity is a trademark of the Creator.

    Maybe the 6000 should have been the reference of the human civilization we know today…not the physical creation.

    This is the reason why I subscribed to the explanation put forth by Herbert W. Armstrong of the old WCG.

  8. #8 Daryl
    June 22, 2013

    After all the evidence against the accuracy of carbon dating…give me a break.
    If you don’t want to believe you were designed and you actually climbed out of a chemical soup and grew legs, go ahead.
    Why are so many people so bent on disproving GOD and creation. It just makes you looks stupid. You believe in your
    little story and have faith in that because that is all you have.
    I will look around and believe this isn’t all here by chance.

    Hope it all goes well on your deathbed and you aren’t shaking in your boots then.

    Besides if you read the best selling book in history you will find that God brings order to an earth without form and void.
    It’s already here 6,000 yrs ago, he just reorganizes it and starts over.

  9. #9 Daryl
    June 22, 2013

    ERRORS FEARED IN CARBON DATING (NEW YORK TIMES)

    Dealing specifically with a tree that is supposedly 10,000 yrs old read the following before you spout about anything dated by carbon 14 methods.

    By MALCOLM W. BROWNE N.Y times

    Published: May 31, 1990

    LEAD: Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years…….
    The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air. Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field would change the deflection of cosmic-ray particles streaming toward the Earth from the Sun. Carbon 14 is thought to be mainly a product of bombardment of the atmosphere by cosmic rays, so cosmic ray intensity would affect the amount of carbon 14 in the environment at any given time.

    Mammoths have been dated where their hindquarters dated a few 100,000 yrs older than their front ends on the same animal.

    Good luck with your belief system….

  10. #10 Wow
    June 23, 2013

    “all the evidence”, right.

    The evidence for the age of the earth isn’t done by carbon dating, dickhead.

    And the “lead” you put said the same thing twice. Poor writing doesn’t ring any alarm bells with you?

    What a moron you are.

  11. #11 Wow
    June 23, 2013

    “And eternity is a trademark of the Creator.”

    Nope, it isn’t.

  12. #12 Sean T
    June 24, 2013

    Daryl,

    Your article is also suspect because of the magnitude of the purported age difference between the front end and the back end of the mammoth. Ages of the order of hundreds ot thousands of years cannot be determined by carbon dating. If someone really is trying to date something that is hundreds of thousands of years old using carbon 14 dating, it’s no wonder that errors of that magnitude are appearing.

  13. #13 dwindle
    August 11, 2013

    Why would you bother arguing with a creationist? They aren’t concerned with reality.

  14. #14 Jim Weldon
    Arizona
    August 11, 2013

    Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool.
    Mark Twain.

  15. #15 nubwaxer
    August 14, 2013

    thousands of years of praying and what result? thousands of years of science and it’s proven by the things all around us.

  16. #16 Wow
    August 15, 2013

    Keep waxing that nub, it’s all your brain is good for.

    Really. Plague of boils caused by God, science proves it?

  17. #17 John
    United States
    October 6, 2014

    I would like to apologize for my “religious” friends. They seem to think that defending a very narrow and disproven story of recent creation is paramount to defending their belief in a God… And the corresponding narrative. They are what turn people that think of themselves as intellectuals away from contemplating the existence of an actual creator. There can be little doubt that the earth and the universe is very very old and that things have evolved in nearly every sense of the word. However, to me, still thinking logically, that does not preclude a creator. There is an apparent element of design in the very basic structures of biology, as well as in the very concept of a beginning. Don’t let a few geezers with their heads in the sand stop you from believing in a God.

Current ye@r *