How do fruit trees fit into evolution?

[RickG]

In other words, you expect me to ignore what God has said to me in favor of what man is telling me? I can't do that Rick. God's understanding of Earth history goes far beyond what theories are the flavor of the month this month. I know my God to be true and to always tell me the truth because He is truth. God word is true, it can't be changed.

In Christ, GB

GB, I would like to give you a link to a recently published sermon delivered only last month, which I believe addresses your post quite well. Just to give you the gist, it addresses a local controversy that has developed over the past year in my hometown concerning some extremely drastic changes in administrative and academic policy's at Shorter University, a fully accredited private Baptist academic institution. Please read and give your feed back. I would really appreciate it.

It is titled, "Is the Bible Inerrant?"

June | 2012 | SaveOurShorter

 

[Trogool]

Why would fruit trees even exist if evolution were true?

In Christ, GB

This question can be answered by an introductory plant biology course.

 

[good brother]

GB, I would like to give you a link to a recently published sermon delivered only last month, which I believe addresses your post quite well. Just to give you the gist, it addresses a local controversy that has developed over the past year in my hometown concerning some extremely drastic changes in administrative and academic policy's at Shorter University, a fully accredited private Baptist academic institution. Please read and give your feed back. I would really appreciate it.

It is titled, "Is the Bible Inerrant?"

June | 2012 | SaveOurShorter

I started in on that article, Rick. Thank you for pointing out that there are liberals even in the SBC that want to diminish the power of God's word. I got to this point in the article:

"The Bible says WHO created the universe. It offers no explanation as to HOW this process of creation occurred."

​

And I knew this guy was coming from a liberal view. He completely and willingly ignored the context of the text to make that claim as the Bible is plain in stating that God spoke and it was so. That is the "HOW" that this guy says the Bible doesn't say. It says it over and over and over again in the first chapter, and yet this guy says it doesn't. He is either completely uninformed on that which he speaks or is ignoring the text on purpose.


In Christ, GB



P.S. I went ahead and read through the entirety of Kremer's sermon and stand by my above statement.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I started in on that article, Rick. Thank you for pointing out that there are liberals even in the SBC that want to diminish the power of God's word. I got to this point in the article:

"The Bible says WHO created the universe. It offers no explanation as to HOW this process of creation occurred."

​

And I knew this guy was coming from a liberal view. He completely and willingly ignored the context of the text to make that claim as the Bible is plain in stating that God spoke and it was so. That is the "HOW" that this guy says the Bible doesn't say. It says it over and over and over again in the first chapter, and yet this guy says it doesn't. He is either completely uninformed on that which he speaks or is ignoring the text on purpose.


In Christ, GB



P.S. I went ahead and read through the entirety of Kremer's sermon and stand by my above statement.

If you somehow find this to be compelling or adequately describes natural processes, then good on ya. This does zero to explain, to keep this on topic, paleobotany. Anything we've ever come to know and understand regarding plant biology have come from dedicated women and men working diligently in every university on every continent, publishing data so as to converge on a meaningful theory that best explains the evidence, only to have cdesign proponentsists and their ilk spout off goddidit.

 

[Greg1234]

If you somehow find this to be compelling or adequately describes natural processes, then good on ya. This does zero to explain, to keep this on topic, paleobotany. Anything we've ever come to know and understand regarding plant biology have come from dedicated women and men working diligently in every university on every continent, publishing data so as to converge on a meaningful theory that best explains the evidence, only to have cdesign proponentsists and their ilk spout off goddidit.

Do they talk about the spirit and soul of the organism or recognize the fact that the aforementioned are in control?

 

[Trogool]

Do they talk about the spirit and soul of the organism or recognize the fact that the aforementioned are in control?

In botany research? Do you have any idea what the field of botany is?

 

[Greg1234]

In botany research? Do you have any idea what the field of botany is?

Just asking.

 

[RickG]

I started in on that article, Rick. Thank you for pointing out that there are liberals even in the SBC that want to diminish the power of God's word. I got to this point in the article:

"The Bible says WHO created the universe. It offers no explanation as to HOW this process of creation occurred."

​

And I knew this guy was coming from a liberal view. He completely and willingly ignored the context of the text to make that claim as the Bible is plain in stating that God spoke and it was so. That is the "HOW" that this guy says the Bible doesn't say. It says it over and over and over again in the first chapter, and yet this guy says it doesn't. He is either completely uninformed on that which he speaks or is ignoring the text on purpose.


In Christ, GB



P.S. I went ahead and read through the entirety of Kremer's sermon and stand by my above statement.

Please review Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37.

Then I invite others to read his sermon as well.

What you are missing with his sermon is that the interpretation of the word "inerrant" is the problem with fundamentalism.

The earth is much older than 6,000 years through many different lines of evidence. Those lines of evidence do not contradict the bible in the least. The bible says God created the heavens and the earth, it doesn't say "how".

 

[Loudmouth]

I started in on that article, Rick. Thank you for pointing out that there are liberals even in the SBC that want to diminish the power of God's word.

How does one empower God's Word by requiring an interpretation that conflicts with the evidence found in God's Creation? I guess you never stopped to consider that the liberals may be right?

 

[RickG]

How does one empower God's Word by requiring an interpretation that conflicts with the evidence found in God's Creation? I guess you never stopped to consider that the liberals may be right?

I'm not sure what GB means by liberal because liberal generally has a political implication. In the case of the pastor who delivered the sermon I posted, he is quite conservative politically.

Nevertheless, the overall message delivered in the sermon is from a "mainstream" Christian perspective, not one of "fundamentalism". What we see, in my opinion, in these science forums are fundamentalist views, not those of mainstream Christianity. In other words, the greater Christian community thinks a 6,000 year old earth is ridiculous.

 

[good brother]

Please review Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37.

What are you trying to say Rick? Speak up, if you have something to say. Do you think I am judging this guy? Was it not you that judged me by saying my interpretation was faulted?

What you are missing with his sermon is that the interpretation of the word "inerrant" is the problem with fundamentalism.

You are judging fundamentalism as wrong because we take the Bible at face value.

The earth is much older than 6,000 years through many different lines of evidence. Those lines of evidence do not contradict the bible in the least.

Except that according to a billions of year old Earth view, death has reigned on this planet long before any man walked this Earth. A "billions of years old Earth" would have far more than one man and one woman here on the planet when the acts of the Garden happened. If there were other men and women on the Earth, then there would have been a sinless line(s) because they did not partake of the sin that forbidden fruit. Nope, no contradictions at all.

The bible says God created the heavens and the earth, it doesn't say "how".

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” .... and there was light.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” ..... And it was so.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” .... And it was so.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” ..... And it was so.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.”.... And it was so.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” .... And God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” .... And it was so.


Seven times it says that "God said"... and five times it ends with "and it was so", once it ends with "and there was light", and once it says "and God saw that it was good". If you can't see God speaking things into existence it's because you wouldn't be reading the text. If you read more into it than that, then you would be adding to the text. If you say that you have more knowledge than the text you would be announcing you know better than God.


In the end it's far better to let the text speak for itself and let our beliefs be built around it than to build our beliefs and twist the text to conform to our preconceived beliefs.


In Christ, GB

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not sure what GB means by liberal because liberal generally has a political implication. In the case of the pastor who delivered the sermon I posted, he is quite conservative politically.

Nevertheless, the overall message delivered in the sermon is from a "mainstream" Christian perspective, not one of "fundamentalism". What we see, in my opinion, in these science forums are fundamentalist views, not those of mainstream Christianity. In other words, the greater Christian community thinks a 6,000 year old earth is ridiculous.

Darrow: Does the statement "The morning and the evening were the first day" and "The morning and the evening were the second day" mean anything to you?
Bryan: I do not think it means necessarily a twenty-four-hour day.
Darrow: What do you consider it to be?
Bryan: I have not attempted to explain it. The word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is necessity for construing the words "the evening and the morning" as meaning necessarily a twenty-four hour day.
Darrow: You think these were not literal days?
Bryan: I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days . . . but I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in six hundred million years. I do not think it is important whether we believe one or the other.
Darrow: Do you think those were literal days?
Bryan: My impression is that they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days.
Darrow: Do you think the sun was made on the fourth day?
Bryan: Yes.
Darrow: And they had evening and morning without the sun?
Bryan: I am simply saying it is a period.
Darrow: They had evening and morning for four periods without the sun, do you think?
Bryan: I believe in Creation, as there told, and if I am not able to explain it, I will accept it.
Darrow: Then you can explain it to suit yourself . . . If you call those periods, they may have been a very long time?
Bryan: They might have been.
Darrow: Then Creation might have been going on for a very long time?
Bryan: It might have continued for millions of years.
...
Bryan: Your Honor, I think I can shorten this testimony. The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible, but I will answer his questions. I will answer it all at once, and I have no objection in the world. I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in a God, is trying to use a court in Tennessee ...
Darrow: I object to that ...
Bryan: ...to slur at it, and, while it will require time, I am willing to take it.
Darrow: I object to your statement. I am examining you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes.

 

[good brother]

I'm not sure what GB means by liberal because liberal generally has a political implication.

LIBERALISM: 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Political or religious.

There are tons of things going on inside the church which are taking a liberal bias instead of being founded upon what the Word of God actually says. If you want to start a thread about it, let's do it. For now let's remain on task with the subject of the OP.

In Christ, GB

 

[Archaeopteryx]

LIBERALISM: 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Political or religious.

There are tons of things going on inside the church which are taking a liberal bias instead of being founded upon what the Word of God actually says. If you want to start a thread about it, let's do it. For now let's remain on task with the subject of the OP.

In Christ, GB

If you listen to what it "actually says", as in a literal interpretation of every single passage, then the Earth is stationary in the cosmos.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are tons of things going on inside the church which are taking a liberal bias instead of being founded upon what the Word of God actually says.

Cardinals and Popes used to say very similar things about the liberal idea that the Earth orbits the Sun. It would seem that reality itself has a liberal bias.

 

[RickG]

You are judging fundamentalism as wrong because we take the Bible at face value.

I have no problem with anyone believing completely in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. I do have problem with people who deliberately misrepresent scientific facts to make their beliefs fit. I hope you understand the difference I am trying to convey.

Except that according to a billions of year old Earth view, death has reigned on this planet long before any man walked this Earth. A "billions of years old Earth" would have far more than one man and one woman here on the planet when the acts of the Garden happened. If there were other men and women on the Earth, then there would have been a sinless line(s) because they did not partake of the sin that forbidden fruit. Nope, no contradictions at all.

If you or anyone wishes believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, I am okay with that. If you or anyone wishes to misrepresent the many lines of scientific evidence that says it is much older than 6,000 years, I am not okay with that. I hope you understand the distinctions I am trying to make.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

In the end it's far better to let the text speak for itself and let our beliefs be built around it than to build our beliefs and twist the text to conform to our preconceived beliefs.


In Christ, GB

And when reality doesn't agree with ancient bronze age texts? This is the problem with ancient writings and "holy" texts, as they don't allow any room for updating new information and knowledge as it comes in.

Our beliefs should reflect the evidence, rather than choosing only to believe what supports our beliefs. Beliefs come first, then we look for evidence to support them, or evidence is evaluated and beliefs constructed?

 

[good brother]

Beliefs come first, then we look for evidence to support them...

Beliefs that come before evidence are called preconcieved notions and assumptions.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Beliefs that come before evidence are called preconcieved notions and assumptions.

Ding ding ding....

Winner, winner chicken dinner!

 

[bjt2024]

From an evolutionary standpoint it would almost seem as though fruit and nut trees go against ToE as they would draw insects and animals to them. That is not a defensive mechanism. It is the equivalent of attracting it's own death. Think about it for a moment. What animals would a fruit tree attract? Herbivores obviously. But more than that. Herbivores come and eat the fruit, leaves, and small branches of the tree. This is taking away from the growth of the tree. This can kill a tree if that activity is not stopped.


I know that deer are heavily attracted to fruit trees. Bucks are attracted to does. If does are eating at the fruit trees, they are going to be bringing in bucks. Bucks go through the rub every year. During the rub they rub their antlers up and down on trees. That scrapes off bark. That means that there is exposed inner layers that can kill a tree if too much is exposed.

Another problem are the bugs. Insects are attracted to the sugars found naturally in the fruit and the "meat" of the fruit trees. This means that the tree is "inviting" small organisms to come ind infest the tree with their habitation. This can and will kill a tree.

Why would fruit trees even exist if evolution were true?

In Christ, GB

Surely it is beneficial for an animal to eat the seed-bearing fruit of a tree? The seeds would pass through the digestive tract of the animal and be excreted in a new location, allowing the spread of new trees. It's just another method of seed dispersal.

Insects are attracted to sweet sugary compounds in exchange for pollen which they carry to other plants and pollinate.

What in effect you have said is "Why does X exist through evolution, if Y can eat it and ultimately kill it"