Except that Bristlecones don’t grow extra rings. That article likely refers to a claim made by a Don Batten where he tries to equivocate Monterey pines -actually his were even farm raised- with Bristlecones. Since he is a plant physiologist, he knows that this is a dishonest claim.

I may be wrong though, the reference may be someone else. If you find it, post it and I’ll double check.

Dave and I are having a little debate on the subject as a matter of fact:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=15538

Hello. Don’t you think it would be very unusual and virtually impossible, for anything alive today to be older than 5,000 years? This would be a very easy prediction for creationists to make, because even if the earth is more than 4 Billion years old, it’s not likely any life would be older than the tree you were talking about.

I’m disappointed you would call creationism a scientific theory. Creationism is not science at all. It’s a religious belief. It would be impossible to find a competent scientist who thought the earth was just a few thousand years old instead of the actual age of about 4 1/2 Billion years. Even the most religious scientists agree with this proven scientific fact that the earth is Billions of years old.

Also, even the very religious scientists, if they are competent, would never agree that there is any truth in creationism. Virtually every scientist in the world agrees the evidence proves all life evolved and humans are an ape species that developed from other animals.

There is a lot of false information being spread about what scientists agree about. Of course scientists disagree about a lot of things, but they all agree evolution is a fact. The rare scientist who doubts evolution is almost never a biologist, and is likely very incompetent.