3 ms·
https://www.conservation.org/news/methuselah-still-the-worlds-oldest-tree https://www.conservation.org/news/methuselah-still-the-world... Why do these disagree
by vscode-rest 6mo ago
https://www.conservation.org/news/methuselah-still-the-worlds-oldest-tree https://www.conservation.org/news/methuselah-still-the-world...
Why do these disagree? Are the metrics perhaps under some debate, even amongst the Scientists?
- wat10000 6mo agoThat one isn’t counting clonal trees.
- vscode-rest 6mo agoOk. Not really sure what you’re getting at here tbh. But I assume you have read some paper that said that this tree had some isotope of some material, and you’ve taken that to mean the earth is older than 6,000 years?
- wat10000 6mo agoThere are trees much older than 6,000 years, I provided a link with details, and you don’t know what I’m getting at?
- vscode-rest 6mo agoNo, you have data that you’ve interpreted to mean that the trees are older than 6,000 years old. What is that data, and why have you interpreted it in that way?
- wat10000 6mo agoThe cool thing about Wikipedia is that the bottom of every article has a bunch of references.
- vscode-rest 6mo agoSo you don’t know. But you have faith someone did their homework. Me too!
- wat10000 6mo agoIt's not faith when a bunch of different people all did the homework and came up with the same answers. Especially when they're all part of a system that rewards new discoveries, and they did the homework in very different ways. There are mountains (both literal and metaphorical) of evidence for an old earth. The only evidence for a young earth is a book which contradicts its own creation story in the first two chapters.
- vscode-rest 6mo ago[dead]