Did Nye Lie About the Trees

Nye Ham

No. He just leaved a few things out…[did you get it: “leaved”. Like a tree has leaves!…Yeah, I liked it too.]

Trees are dated by counting rings, and as such the oldest single tree in the world, by ring count, is a bristlecone pine in California that is currently unnamed and is about 5,000 years old (3). Don’t worry, research don’t cut them down. They just drill a hole.

Unnamed Bristlecone Pine

The oldest tree’s age of about 5,000 matches very closely with a literal timeline for the Bible’s flood that God used to kill almost everyone on the planet because…

“The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”  (Genesis 6:5 ESV)

The trees that Nye mentioned are clonal trees meaning that they spread by cloning themselves into new sprouts that shoot out of the roots. Thus a huge grove can be a set of clones. That means that you can get a tree with a ring count of 96 years, but it is actually older by attachment to older clones, but no one can be sure how much older because we don’t know how many clone generations came before it. The tree below that Nye showed is very young (even “new” by tree standards), but the roots are a little older. I mean, look at it. It’s like a sad, lonely, balding, baby Christmas tree. It makes me a little emotional. *tear*

Old Tjikko is an allegedly 9,550-year-old Norway Spruce tree, and is the world’s oldest living individual clonal tree. The tree was carbon dated by the root system under the tree, not counting tree rings. (2)

Nye’s Old Tjikko was dated 9,550 years old using carbon dating, a method of dating that is very wild in accuracy as Ham explained and gave examples of in the debate, and apart from assumptive carbon dating (1), these tree age dates are often very rough estimates; we’re basically guessing. For example, the oldest clonal tree according to Wikipedia is assumed, in line with evolutionary assumptions, to be 80,000 or maybe 1,000,000 years old. That’s pretty accurate…-ish…Nope, nevermind.

It’s amazing to get into some of the research and see how many times small tricks like this were played on listeners during the debate. The meme at the top would draw many to believe the rings were counted all the way to 9,550 years to disprove the flood of Noah, when actually, the oldest trees in the world, California’s bristlecone pines, align perfectly with the timeline of the Bible and a worldwide flood about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.


If the Bible is trustworthy in its testimony of an event as outrageous as a worldwide flood, then does it tell the truth about the Son of God too?

You know where I stand: Nothing is better than Jesus.


(1) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko

(3) http://www.livescience.com/29152-oldest-tree-in-world.html