Yes, then why not just say it's immortal or it lives to be over a million years old. And for that matter, has anyone really checked with a good source that it is immortal? Only one of the statements is necessary. I don't know what else to tell you, you're fighting a lost battle.

Yes, but it is a redundant statement. Unnecessary and unneeded.

It could be used to emphasize the amount of years it lives. If i said "it lives forever" most people would be like "meh". but if i said it can live way over a million years old (or 5000 ), its immortal, more people would be shitting their pants in the amazing of this tree.

Yes, then why not just say it's immortal or it lives to be over a million years old. And for that matter, has anyone really checked with a good source that it is immortal? Only one of the statements is necessary. I don't know what else to tell you, you're fighting a lost battle.

My statement still makes sense. It's unnecessary to include both over 5000 years and it's immortal. It's like saying the sky is blue and also it's not red.

It's like saying the sun can live over 1 year old, i'm simply stating it can live over one year old and doesn't limit it to that. Of course with all the geniuses here there's no point in me arguing.

Yes, but it is a redundant statement. Unnecessary and unneeded.

It could be used to emphasize the amount of years it lives. If i said "it lives forever" most people would be like "meh". but if i said it can live way over a million years old (or 5000 ), its immortal, more people would be shitting their pants in the amazing of this tree.

Yes, then why not just say it's immortal or it lives to be over a million years old. And for that matter, has anyone really checked with a good source that it is immortal? Only one of the statements is necessary. I don't know what else to tell you, you're fighting a lost battle.

Wasn't actually aware of that o.O

Thanks.