are trees evidence of evolution or creationism?

Question

I heard the strangest thing on AM talk radio:
They said trees were evidence of god because God knew there would be fertile land and rocky land, thats why god made so many kinds of trees.

but why didnt god make all the land fertile?
why didnt he make trees edible so there would be no starving people?

this sounds like more of like proof of evolution to me.

Answer 1

But he also made nothing for Antarctica and the vast streches of ocean floor. He also made billions of other planets with no evidence of life. He put no large mammals on Hawaii, marsupials in Australia and New Zealand, only lemur monkeys on Madagascar, no non-human primates in North America - It certainly seems to be evidence of evolution more than supernatural phenomena. How were the naked mole rats, tree kangaroos, marine iguanas, coelocanths, springtails, angler fish, tube worms, and liver flukes a "necessary part of gods plan"?
Why did god make so many kinds of insects? There are over 500,000 species of coleoptera alone. Why did god make species instead of just having a fluid type of organism that could adapt instantly to the infinite ecological niches of Earth like Silly Putty can make a mold of any surface? The thing is that when you begin with a belief you tend to only attempt to confirm it.
Trees and plants that are edible either derive a benefit from being eaten or are well adapted to surviving predation.
A lot of what is said on AM radio is just to fill dead air- it is not very well thought out.

Answer 2

Know that some trees you cannot eat are meant for God's other creatures.

If all available ground were fertile , you will need the Dinosaurs to control their growth - that's why for the pre-flood world where it was germs free - God created the Dinosaurs to control the
enormous plants which today are crude oil.

God plans everything super intelligently.

Before you mock him, see how small our brains our compared to the ever expanding universe.

Answer 3

brainiac need more fuel.

I beleive trees do yield a thing called fruit. Your missing the overall picture of creation. The garden of Eden was overflowing with fertility and had a bounty of edibles. Things changed after the moment of deception. That just explains a ton. Then on top of that, living in the USA there is an overabundance of food here anyway. Do you live in the desert?

Answer 4

If you count the rings on trees and date them - they go father back than 6,000 years which goes against at least Intelligent Design and further prove Evolution.

At the start of this video you'll see how: http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q

... aren't some types of tree bark edible?
In any case... trees aren't evidence for Creationism. There IS none.

Answer 5

Bushes grow on fertile ground. (God appeared as a burning bush, not a tree.) Trees gaining height is an evolutionary advantage for several reasons: competion for sunlight, windborn release of seeds and pollen, and reduction in seed predation to name a few. Trees incorporate a variety of survival traits to propegate themselves, hence the variety.

Answer 6

An interesting note about trees. Fossils of trees and other plant life have been found all over the world. Yet not a single fossil has shown any of this plant life in the midst of evolving. All that has been discovered are plants as they are now. Of course fossils of extinct plants were discovered but none of plants evolving.

Now if Evolution was true then we should have fossil evidence of plants in transitional stages. But none have been found. Just fossils of plants in the end stage.

Answer 7

Trees, in and of themselves, are not proof of either. But if you look at the historical and geological record, you can see that evolution conforms with trees and all other forms of modern life. Evolution is now a proven fact.

Answer 8

What you wrote with your question is not proof of anything. You ought to go to law school and learn what constitutes evidence and proof.
If trees are proof of evolution as you conclude, then why didn't evolution make them edible?
Evolution is not fact. It is not science, pseudo-science maybe. It is not even credible theory. In science, real science, you work from observable, testable facts, to construct your theory. Where are the observable, testable facts of evolution? Instead, evolutionists go desperately in search of this or that scrap of supposed evidence to buttress their ill-conceived theory.
Furthermore, you err in your view of this life. It is not meant to be a heaven. It is more like a reformatory. We here, primarily, not to indulge our pleasures, but to learn and become what we are meant to be--that's why there are hardships, because they are needed for growth.
Evolution is not a high and noble view of mankind. And it portrays a future more horrifying than comforting.

Answer 9

All the same types of trees would have grown and trees and plants produce more cures to diseases than all the labs in the world could ever

Answer 10

What did the tree evolve from and how did it evolve. That is what you have to explain to make it so.

We only have to say it was created intentfully.

I mean your car was created intentfully, so was your xbox, a/c, refrigerator, washer and dryer, lawn mowers or did you think those things evolved out of iron ore.

Maybe you should get some iron and and wait for it to magically evolve into your next car!