Thanks Jeanie
My daughter is actually on her way back to Idaho from California where her and her husband worked this summer and visited some of the parks there with the sequoia's, etc. (I assume this is one of those...)
No, they are Bristlecone Pines.
So far I have to agree, though, that the Methusalah tree could have withstood the flood.
Which doesn't explain the bits and pieces of wood lying on the ground that match the tree rings and the carbon-14 levels going back to 8,000 years ago (long before a flood if not too old for the earth). If from before the flood, why didn't it float away? If the wood was rooted trees at the time of the flood, then you still have and earth that is too old. Certainly the wood is scattered on the mountainside in a manner that is not consistent with the deposition of floating material.
Furthermore, buried under those living Bristlecone Pines are some sedimentary layers of rock containing those ancient shells that are from mature marine environments with individuals that were 10, 20 or 30 years old when they died in situ, when that rock was muddy sea bottom. Although these layers are nearly eroded away, the Sierra Nevadas are also actively rising due to continuing tectonic activity (they are one of the youngest mountain ranges).
http://www.sierrahistorical.org/archives/geology.htmlThat's a lot of deposition and erosion to account for and still have living trees growing on the mountain top that date older than the flood.
You really don't believe a flood happened??
I see absolutely no reason to believe that a biblical flood occurred. There is
zero evidence I am aware of to support such a concept, in spite of continually asking creationists for real objective evidence.
Enjoy.
