Battle of the Fruit Trees

The atheists over on the forum at Peaceful Science really hate it when I describe Genesis 1 as an historical account of God preparing the heavens and the earth for human habitation. You see, they are always saying that Genesis 1 is fiction with no connection to reality. And I am saying, "No, God revealed the history of Earth in Genesis 1 and modern science is just filling in additional details."

They hate this because atheists want to own reality. But they don't. I'm fighting back.

Atheists want Christians to take the Bible as only figurate and literary, not as reality. The more "miraculous", the better. They are happy with the Framework Theory of Genesis 1 because they can dismiss it as just "someone's ideas" and not anything that challenges their view of reality. They are happy with Young Earth Creationism because they are pretty successful at destroying the faith of young people who have been taught only that.

So, this led to a back and forth on fruit trees of all things.

My claim is that God created fruit trees during the Early Cretaceous Epoch and that this corresponds to a time near the end of Day 3.

Now the atheist I was dialoging with claims that by "fruit trees," Genesis 1 means trees producing table fruit that people commonly consume today, and that there were no such trees during the Early Cretaceous. 

Here is the atheist's argument:

1. The Bible describes God creating horticultural, and only horticultural, fruit trees on Day 3
2. None of the trees that humans cultivate for fruit today existed during the Early Cretaceous
3. Therefore, Day 3 cannot include the Early Cretaceous
4. Therefore, Genesis 1 cannot be reconciled with the geologic history of life on Earth as claimed on the agesofjoy.blogspot.com blog (this blog).

Atheists want to prove that it is impossible to reconcile Genesis 1 with the geologic history of the Earth.

Here is how I responded:

Let me start with the "everyday meaning of the word" by trekking over to wikipedia's definition of a fruit tree.

Botanical Defintion:

A fruit tree is a tree which bears fruit that is consumed or used by humans and some animals - all trees that are flowering plants produce fruit, which are the ripened ovaries of flowers containing one or more seeds.

That's the definition I am using (the botanical definition), and what I think is meant in Genesis 1. 

The wikipedia article goes on with a further specification.

Horticultural Definition:

In horticultural usage, the term "fruit tree" is limited to those that provide fruit for human food.

This is the definition the atheist is using (the horticultural definition), which I think is too limited for Genesis 1. Then he insists there were no "fruit trees" during the Early Cretaceous.

What the Bible says:

Genesis 1:29-30

29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

In v29 fruit trees are given to mankind for horticultural purposes. I grant that. But that in itself does not imply that all fruit trees God created were ready for horticultural use right from the start.

Here are my arguments for the botanical definition, any one of which I think is sufficient on its own:

1. v30 "every green plant" given to animals, which will include plants yielding seed and fruit trees, in the broader botanical sense.

2. Since Day 3 occurs before humans, I don't think the limited horticultural sense of fruit tree is required by the text. I think the broader botanical sense is appropriate.

3. The ancient Hebrew people were certainly capable of recognizing that animals consumed kinds of fruit that people do not, and could understand the botanical sense easily.

4. The Hebrew word for "fruit" has a very broad meaning, encompassing fruit as used by people (horticultural sense) and fruit as only consumed by animals (botanical sense).

5. If the horticultural sense of fruit tree is demanded, then the text would be silent about the origin of non-horticultural fruit trees, which seems overly restrictive for an encompassing creation narrative.

6. Modern horticultural fruit trees that most people think about have been highly domesticated since the origin of agriculture. Adam didn't have any Honey Crisp apples, for example. Therefore, it's reasonable to include in "fruit trees" given to mankind those varieties that were not originally used horticulturally, but had the potential to be. This demands a definition broader than the horticultural definition. Horticultural fruit trees are domesticated from botanical fruit trees, some of which did not originally produce fruit desirable for human consumption.

7. Horticulture obviously comes after the creation of botanical fruit trees and God instructed Adam in horticulture in the garden of Eden. So Adam could develop horticulturally some of the varieties that God had created botanically.

All this I say to support my main point:

Botanical fruit trees existed on Earth since the Early Cretaceous which I include with the time frame of Day 3.

I see no conflict with also saying that: Humans can eat some naturally occurring fruit, and furthermore, horticultural fruit trees are descended from botanical fruit trees and were domesticated on and after Day 6.

Now, please note: The atheists don't disagree that fruit trees, by the botanical definition, existed during the Early Cretaceous. Instead, they insist on an interpretation of Genesis 1 that precludes historical concordism between science and the Bible. Historical concordism is a tried and true method for upholding the authority of Scripture.