Swedish trees older than the universe?
A closer look at a claim about the world’s oldest trees—allegedly older
than the biblical date of creation.
by Carl Wieland
Published: 22 April 2008(GMT+10)
Photo Wikipedia
Is the Norway spruce older than creation?
A cluster of trees discovered in western Sweden’s mountains are claimed to
be the oldest living trees in the world. At the claimed ‘date’ of 8,000
years, the trees (ironically called ‘Norway spruces’) would not only
be thousands of years prior to the biblical date of the global Flood, but some 2,000
years older than the date of creation itself.
Accustomed as one is to ‘dating claims’ of millions of years, one might
be tempted here to say, ‘So what?’ After all, the claim only contradicts
the Bible by a couple of thousand years or so.
But the reason we respond to this article is because most readers of the media article
trumpeting the claim1 are
likely to automatically assume that the age has been determined by counting the
annual growth rings. This process seems a foolproof way to determine the age, one
with far fewer assumptions and uncertainties than in radiometric dating.
And contrary to the allegations of some biblioskeptics, the Bible’s claims
do need to (and do) stand up to scrutiny against real-world data. If the Bible were
mistaken in its factual accounts of history, how could it be trusted on its claims
concerning our eternal destiny?
And contrary to the allegations of some biblioskeptics, the Bible’s claims
do need to (and do) stand up to scrutiny against real-world data. If the Bible were
mistaken in its factual accounts of history, how could it be trusted on its claims
concerning our eternal destiny (cf.
John 3:12)?
So what is going on?
It has already been established that a tree may put down more than one ‘annual’
layer per year. But in any case, when one closely examines the article, it seems
that the age was not determined by tree-ring dating, but by carbon dating, with
all of its well-known sources of error, not to mention assumptions.
C14 dating of living trees?
But this is curious, too. The whole methodology of radiocarbon (C14) dating involves
the notion that the organism has died, and is no longer exchanging carbon with its
environment. So a specimen is ‘dated’ using the time of death of the
organism as the starting point. So how can a live tree be shown to have died 8,000
years ago?
Photo stock.xchng
Counting the growth rings shows that the sequoias of California, also known as giant
redwoods, contain some of the world’s oldest known living trees. These latest Swedish
claims do not involve tree ring dating.
The answer to this apparent conundrum is suggested by the same article’s comment
that ‘a single tree trunk can become at most about 600 years old’. In
other words, there is no living specimen that has been ‘dated’ (by any
means) at more than 600 years. The article also states that ‘the spruces had
survived by pushing out another trunk as soon as the old one died.’ In other
words, the trees cloned themselves. This suggests that the dating was trying to
establish when the first of the now-dead trees in that cluster, the progenitor trunk
of the ones living now (that are less than 600 years old) commenced the process.
Naturally this involves a much more indirect set of assumptions. And, as would make
sense, the radiocarbon dating only involved a dead specimen.2
Another article on the same discovery seems to confirm all this, that the age is
not from tree-ring dating, but from the much shakier radiocarbon dating.3 The item refers to even older dates (9,550 years),
and makes it clear that this result was from pieces of wood found beneath
the living trees, not sampled from them. It also confirms that the specimens with
the old dates had the same genetic material as the now-living trees (i.e. were clones).
Allowing for the occasional additional ring per season, the tree-ring ages of the
earth’s oldest trees all fit with the idea that all trees growing on the planet
were killed or uprooted by the Genesis Flood, some 4,500 years ago.
There are living trees that are thousands of years old, like California’s
giant redwoods. But these are actually great evidence for the global Flood. Why?
Because if something has survived for a few thousand years, it seems there is no
reason why some of them should not still be alive after, say, 10 or 20 thousand
years. But there are none that old. Allowing for the occasional additional ring
per season, the tree-ring ages of the earth’s oldest trees all fit with the
idea that all trees growing on the planet were killed or uprooted by the Genesis
Flood, some 4,500 years ago.
The lesson is that when things look as if they contradict the Bible, it’s
always worth taking a closer look. Especially if it’s something in the popular
media.
Related articles
Further reading
References
-
Swedish Spruce May Be World’s Oldest Living Tree, April 14, 2008.
Return to text.
- This is reminiscent of another time when the media trumpeted
an ancient tree, growing in Tasmania, Australia, allegedly 10,000 years old—there
too, it was not tree-ring dating that gave rise to the age at all. See
Living tree ‘8,000 years older than Christ’ (?), Creation
17(3):26–27, 1995. Return to text.
-
World’s oldest living tree discovered in Sweden. Return
to text.
(Also available in Albanian and Russian)
| The ‘new atheists’ claim that Christianity doesn’t have answers to evolution. This site begs to differ with over 7,000 fully searchable articles—many of them science-based. Keep refuting the skeptics.  | | |
|
