A question for theistic evolutionists

[Esperanza32]

First off, I’m not here to argue about evolution/creationism, and I’m not sure this is the right forum, but I see a lot of TE people here.

I’ll tell you a bit of my history: I grew up in a fairly liberal church and gave my life to Christ when I was 16 (at a conservative evangelical youth gathering). At that time, I was so enthusiastic that I ate up every Christian book, radio show, song, magazine, etc that I could find (and I read the Bible a lot too; I had already read it straight through before I was 16). Because most of the things I was reading and listening to promoted a very literal interpretation of scripture (Bible Answer Man was my favorite on the radio, if that gives you an idea), I figured that I had to believe in a literal 6-day creation to be a “real” Christian.

I’d always wanted to be a scientist, and I love living things, but I love God too, so when I graduated from high school, I went to a church-affiliated liberal arts college and double-majored in Biology and Religion. With the help of great Christian friends, great professors, pastors, etc., I grew and learned a LOT about the world, God, and the Bible. (And I learned that I didn’t know nearly as much as I thought I knew! And there’s so much I still don’t know.) I read the Bible and prayed more than ever. By the time I graduated, I was convinced that the Genesis creation accounts did not need to be interpreted literally for me to be a “real” Christian, and it made perfect sense to me (scientifically and theologically) that God had created life using an evolutionary process.

I put a lot of prayer into what I should do next, and ended up getting a PhD in plant pathology. My dissertation focused on evolution and speciation of fungi. I felt that God led me to that field, and studying his creation (and how he might have created it) is fascinating to me. I’m afraid that I’ll be banned from this board if I let that slip, but there it is.

(After finishing my PhD, I worked in academia for four years until my husband was transferred from the US to the middle of nowhere in the Netherlands, which is where I am now.)

Sorry for the long intro! My question is this—I went through a very literalistic “phase” when I was a young Christian, and I feel like my current theistic evolution approach has only come after lots of prayer, study, and maturing in the faith. Sometimes I wonder if I NEEDED that literal phase, to build up the faith and strength to go further, much like a baby needs milk before steak. I have a close friend with similar current views (but not the scientific background) who also went through a very literal-minded period when she first became a Christian. Do other people with a TE slant have a similar history?

Does everyone go through a literalistic "phase" when they first become Christian?

Is it a normal part of spiritual growth? Could it be necessary?

Seriously, I’m not trying to start an argument, I’m just curious if other TE-types have gone through similar growth patterns. Maybe your age/maturity level when you come to Christ plays a role on how you grow spiritually too? I’d also be interested to hear from anyone who USED to believe in theistic evolution, but have now swung back to a more literal interpretation of Genesis as they’ve matured.

Peace in Christ!

[apothanein kerdos]

What do you mean by theistic evolution? That seems to be a very broad term.

I only ask so I can answer your question. :)

[Sold Out]

I think very smart people (like yourself) have to be careful. Remember Jesus said in Matthew 18:4 "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

We have to be purposely childlike, even as adults. Children do not have 'all the answers', yet Christ said their faith was the greatest. We have to purposely humble ourselves to be like children, because pride will bring us down. Paul said in I Corinthians 8:1, ".....Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth."

Don't let your intelligence be a stumbling block to your faith. Paul also said in II Tim. 3:7, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." If you are saying you can't take the creation accounts literally, then maybe your intelligence has become a stumbling block. Taking the bible literally is not a 'phase'. Some portions of scripture are literal, some figurative. It's really not hard to differentiate. Faith means taking God's Word over your own - or anyone else's, for that matter. You have to come to a point where you put your faith in theistic evolution, or put your faith in a 6 day creation. What does the bible say? Always let God have the last say in your life, and you will do well - even as a scientist.

[Luke34]

I was raised as a Christian, and for a while (i.e. until I was like 10-12 maybe) I assumed that the Genesis story was literally true because, well, I was less than ten years old and didn't really think about it so much. However, I was also (as many young children apparently are) obsessed with dinosaurs, about which I knew like five times more back then than I know now. And I knew early on, of course, than dinosaurs had lived millions of years ago and that they had never coexisted with humans. Again, I didn't really think about the contradiction; if you had mentioned it I suppose I would've come up with a ten-year-old's version of the "The six days weren't literal days" explanation, possibly combined with the thing about "a day is as a thousand years" that I for some reason remembered. Then in middle school sometime I began to read about evolution and never went and will not ever go, I think, back.*

*(I realize that last sentence is confusing, but I worked on that syntax, darn it, and I'm not going to abandon the correct but confusing version I came up with for a clearer rendition, because that's the kind of person I am.)

[Jeffinator]

I was raised as a Christian, and for a while (i.e. until I was like 10-12 maybe) I assumed that the Genesis story was literally true because, well, I was less than ten years old and didn't really think about it so much. However, I was also (as many young children apparently are) obsessed with dinosaurs, about which I knew like five times more back then than I know now. And I knew early on, of course, than dinosaurs had lived millions of years ago and that they had never coexisted with humans. Again, I didn't really think about the contradiction; if you had mentioned it I suppose I would've come up with a ten-year-old's version of the "The six days weren't literal days" explanation, possibly combined with the thing about "a day is as a thousand years" that I for some reason remembered. Then in middle school sometime I began to read about evolution and never went and will not ever go, I think, back.*

*(I realize that last sentence is confusing, but I worked on that syntax, darn it, and I'm not going to abandon the correct but confusing version I came up with for a clearer rendition, because that's the kind of person I am.)

I believe dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, Job 40:15-24
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. Job 40:15-24 (KJV)

No other animal today fits this description, the best ive heard is a hippo or a croc except hippo's dont have a tail like a cedar tree they have short stubby tails and a crocs strength is not in their legs neither do they eat grass. It most likely was a Brachiosaurus type of large land dwelling dinosaur.

[Studyin'2Show]

Esperanza, you wouldn't be banned for what you believe. Many here believe that God somehow used some form of evolution for creation. In the context of discussion many will 'share' what they believe. This board just doesn't allow the position to be 'promoted' or 'preached'.

Ironically, I grew up Roman catholic after they embraced evolution so I never questioned the textbooks. I hasn't been until the past six or so years that have moved to YEC. Just for clarification, I believe in the form of evolution that is within your field of study. Evolutionary changes within a plant or animal type. What I do not buy into is the type of evolution that says that you and the banana in your kitchen both have shared ancestry (millions and millions of years ago of course :lol:). There really is a difference. ;)

God Bless!

[DaniHansen]

I personally believe neither in a 6,000-year earth nor in a millions-year earth. But I do believe that God created it all, and that He is the God as portrayed in the Bible. And I'm not scientist enough to look at all the data and decide who is "more right."

Man's measurements of things, I don't think, is going to ever be reliable enough to accurately portray a concrete timeline. But that's alright, I think. To me, true science is discovering God's creation and seeing His laws and principles at work, and so I'm not opposed to certain evolutionary theories. Although I do draw the line at my ancestors crawling out of some primordial soup and that chimpanzees are just a small step down from people. Sorry, no can believe. Even I don't have that much faith. :)

Ultimately, to me, "when" and "how" is not nearly as important as "who" and "why."

[fishbowlsoul]

Great post Esperanza,

Grew up here in a literalist Pentecostal church but was always the annoying kid asking questions like where did Cain get his wife, how all the animals fit into ark, etc. I was always interested in science especially geology. In fact my profession involves that in way now. I accepted Christ at a early age and have been a Christian ever since. Of course through my late teens and into college I look at other beliefs and non beliefs but they did not satisfy my spiritual needs.

I cannot say I was ever a literalist despite the church I grew up in.
For me the literalist view was never satisfactory. It has just never made sense. Even the literalists have to use non literalist reasoning to support their view. Plus to me it is more awesome to think of God as an engineer rather than a magician.

[Studyin'2Show]

As a YEC I have always felt God is an engineer and have never seen the creation as some kind of 'Abracadabra' magic trick. If you read Genesis 1 it gives no indication that God snapped His fingers and wamo. :D The account goes through many steps and stages and uses words like formed for a reason. I believe God's hands formed and shaped creation like a Master Builder not Houdini.

As to the OP's question, I don't think every TE Christian was first a YEC. Nor do I believe that every YEC came through an evolutionist period as I did. We each have our own paths to travel.

God Bless!

[Esperanza32]

Hey, thank you all for the kind, thoughtful discussion. I was (needlessly) worried about having started a flame-war.

(AK, I'm sorry I didn't define terms...I think I meant "TE" as in someone who does not believe that the Bible and modern scientific thought need to be mutually exclusive.)

I've often been afraid to reveal my true thoughts to other Christians (I've been figuratively whacked upside the head with a KJV and told I have no faith too many times). I have worried that being honest about my beliefs would be counterproductive to spreading the gospel, if that makes any sense, hence my question here. But I've really been struggling recently with how to grow in Christ, mature, and share my faith with others (Christians and non-Christians) without being honest and real, both with God and with the people he's put in my life. It just doesn't do anyone any good to fake it.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences with me. I appreciate you all taking the time to respond.

[Studyin'2Show]

Glad we could help. We don't all have to agree on every point to be brothers and sisters in Messiah. Lord knows I don't agree with my natural brother on a whole lot but hey, I love him ALL the time! :D When I got saved I was a TE for quite a while, and I KNOW I was saved so I would NEVER question someone's faith because of this issue. I have looked at the evidence and been swayed toward my beliefs, you have done the same and come to a different conclusion. :dunno: Yet we both, I believe, confess that God did it and not merely chance and time as an atheist believes.

[*Hope*]

I think I meant "TE" as in someone who does not believe that the Bible and modern scientific thought need to be mutually exclusive.)


What do you mean by "modern scientific thought"? :)

[crawfish]

(AK, I'm sorry I didn't define terms...I think I meant "TE" as in someone who does not believe that the Bible and modern scientific thought need to be mutually exclusive.)

I've often been afraid to reveal my true thoughts to other Christians (I've been figuratively whacked upside the head with a KJV and told I have no faith too many times). I have worried that being honest about my beliefs would be counterproductive to spreading the gospel, if that makes any sense, hence my question here. But I've really been struggling recently with how to grow in Christ, mature, and share my faith with others (Christians and non-Christians) without being honest and real, both with God and with the people he's put in my life. It just doesn't do anyone any good to fake it.

A theistic evolutionist is someone who believes that the theory of evolution, including common descent of all life (including man) from a basic form of life and scripture are compatible. Of course, this necessarily implies that the TE believe that Genesis 1-11 are allegorical or symbolic, not a literal representation of "how God did it". TE's are also referred to as "evolutionary creationists", which I kind of like better because it ties us closer to Christians than to secular evolutionists; however, the term "creationist" has become political and tends to muddy the waters somewhat.

I am one, and to answer the original question, no, I never believed in a young earth. As a child I simply believed; I didn't know enough to question. When I was about 12, my church brought in an ex-Atheist to talk about origins from an OEC perspective; and it really opened my eyes to the possibility of congruence between modern (non-TE) scientific thought and scripture. I believed this for about 20 years, until my mid-30's, when I began to question some of the assumptions I was making and directly confront my feelings that ToE had too much evidence to be denied to a level that made YEC or even OEC unlikely. One day I discovered the term "TE" and found that it fit my beliefs best, and I've considered myself one from that day.

I agree with the poster above that intelligence can be dangerous; it can be a substitute for God's influence in our lives, leading us away from faith. However, I also don't believe that God wants us to turn our brains off and simply accept scripture; he wants us to learn, grow and develop both in knowledge of His word and His creation. And in the knowledge that we are not smart enough yet for both to be fully revealed. :)

[GitRDunn]

First off, I’m not here to argue about evolution/creationism, and I’m not sure this is the right forum, but I see a lot of TE people here.

I’ll tell you a bit of my history: I grew up in a fairly liberal church and gave my life to Christ when I was 16 (at a conservative evangelical youth gathering). At that time, I was so enthusiastic that I ate up every Christian book, radio show, song, magazine, etc that I could find (and I read the Bible a lot too; I had already read it straight through before I was 16). Because most of the things I was reading and listening to promoted a very literal interpretation of scripture (Bible Answer Man was my favorite on the radio, if that gives you an idea), I figured that I had to believe in a literal 6-day creation to be a “real” Christian.

I’d always wanted to be a scientist, and I love living things, but I love God too, so when I graduated from high school, I went to a church-affiliated liberal arts college and double-majored in Biology and Religion. With the help of great Christian friends, great professors, pastors, etc., I grew and learned a LOT about the world, God, and the Bible. (And I learned that I didn’t know nearly as much as I thought I knew! And there’s so much I still don’t know.) I read the Bible and prayed more than ever. By the time I graduated, I was convinced that the Genesis creation accounts did not need to be interpreted literally for me to be a “real” Christian, and it made perfect sense to me (scientifically and theologically) that God had created life using an evolutionary process.

I put a lot of prayer into what I should do next, and ended up getting a PhD in plant pathology. My dissertation focused on evolution and speciation of fungi. I felt that God led me to that field, and studying his creation (and how he might have created it) is fascinating to me. I’m afraid that I’ll be banned from this board if I let that slip, but there it is.

(After finishing my PhD, I worked in academia for four years until my husband was transferred from the US to the middle of nowhere in the Netherlands, which is where I am now.)

Sorry for the long intro! My question is this—I went through a very literalistic “phase” when I was a young Christian, and I feel like my current theistic evolution approach has only come after lots of prayer, study, and maturing in the faith. Sometimes I wonder if I NEEDED that literal phase, to build up the faith and strength to go further, much like a baby needs milk before steak. I have a close friend with similar current views (but not the scientific background) who also went through a very literal-minded period when she first became a Christian. Do other people with a TE slant have a similar history?

Does everyone go through a literalistic "phase" when they first become Christian?

Is it a normal part of spiritual growth? Could it be necessary?

Seriously, I’m not trying to start an argument, I’m just curious if other TE-types have gone through similar growth patterns. Maybe your age/maturity level when you come to Christ plays a role on how you grow spiritually too? I’d also be interested to hear from anyone who USED to believe in theistic evolution, but have now swung back to a more literal interpretation of Genesis as they’ve matured.

Peace in Christ!
My answer isn't completely definite so I'm sorry if it doesn't help you.

I don't know if I would call my self either one (although I lean more and more to TE all the time) because the way I see it, it could have been either creation or evolution and I don't know with the capacities of knowledge that we as humans have, all I can know is that whatever it was, God controlled it. When I was younger (I say younger because I'm only 17 now) I didn't really think about it, but once I was old enough to think about it, I have held this either/or stance. I have always loved science and it has always been tied with math for my class type and I just couldn't see why these verses in the Bible had to be taken so literally when there are so many places in the Bible that are metaphorical/allegorical, but I could also see the possibility of it being literal, thus my standpoint. To answer you question straightforward, though, I have never been a literalist. I plan to major in chemistry in college and I don't see why science has to be against God. God created the Earth and thus he created the ideas/concepts that science studies, so how can that go against him? You can have science without being anti-Christian.

[Lamplighter]

Here is the problem with evolution theories in a nutshell. We are not getting smarter each century, we are getting dumber. This is due to the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere, and it has been declining ever since the flood of Noah due to the canopy being removed from the Earth by God. Since oxygen has been decreasing over the last several thousand years, people are being born with less brain cells every year. We aren't getting smarter over time, we are getting dumber.

Modern technology has nothing to do with smarter people, it has to do with God allowing mankind to expand his knowledge in the last days. Man can't destroy the Earth with swords and spears, but man can destroy the Earth with Nuclear weapons operated by computer systems.

Ever wonder why technology was at a literal standstill until the late 19th century? People had far less brain power in the 19th century compared to the 1st century. It's because God kept mankind from having Earth destroying power until he was ready for mankind to have it in order to accomplish his will.

Modern scientific observation combined with God's Word proves a young universe, but wicked men still refuse to believe in God, and this wicked scientific lie of Billions of years that Darwin started, has overwhelmed the church as well.

Fact is, you can't cram billions of years into Genesis and make it float. Either Moses is right, or Darwin is right, and both can't be.

[Philemon9]

Here is the problem with evolution theories in a nutshell. We are not getting smarter each century, we are getting dumber. This is due to the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere, and it has been declining ever since the flood of Noah due to the canopy being removed from the Earth by God. Since oxygen has been decreasing over the last several thousand years, people are being born with less brain cells every year. We aren't getting smarter over time, we are getting dumber.

Modern technology has nothing to do with smarter people, it has to do with God allowing mankind to expand his knowledge in the last days. Man can't destroy the Earth with swords and spears, but man can destroy the Earth with Nuclear weapons operated by computer systems.

Ever wonder why technology was at a literal standstill until the late 19th century? People had far less brain power in the 19th century compared to the 1st century. It's because God kept mankind from having Earth destroying power until he was ready for mankind to have it in order to accomplish his will.

Modern scientific observation combined with God's Word proves a young universe, but wicked men still refuse to believe in God, and this wicked scientific lie of Billions of years that Darwin started, has overwhelmed the church as well.

Fact is, you can't cram billions of years into Genesis and make it float. Either Moses is right, or Darwin is right, and both can't be.

Wow...is your depleting oxygen hypothesis backed up by anything? Please provide the source in this thread.

This polarization of science and Christianity HINDERS many (especially young) people's journey to Christ. With your view, is it even possible for a Christian to be a scientist? Or would they just be false Christians working for the enemy?

[Xel'Naga]

Here is the problem with evolution theories in a nutshell. We are not getting smarter each century, we are getting dumber. This is due to the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere, and it has been declining ever since the flood of Noah due to the canopy being removed from the Earth by God. Since oxygen has been decreasing over the last several thousand years, people are being born with less brain cells every year. We aren't getting smarter over time, we are getting dumber.

Modern technology has nothing to do with smarter people, it has to do with God allowing mankind to expand his knowledge in the last days. Man can't destroy the Earth with swords and spears, but man can destroy the Earth with Nuclear weapons operated by computer systems.

Ever wonder why technology was at a literal standstill until the late 19th century? People had far less brain power in the 19th century compared to the 1st century. It's because God kept mankind from having Earth destroying power until he was ready for mankind to have it in order to accomplish his will.

Modern scientific observation combined with God's Word proves a young universe, but wicked men still refuse to believe in God, and this wicked scientific lie of Billions of years that Darwin started, has overwhelmed the church as well.

Fact is, you can't cram billions of years into Genesis and make it float. Either Moses is right, or Darwin is right, and both can't be.

I hope you don't go around saying this a lot :rolleyes:

[watchinginawe]

Because most of the things I was reading and listening to promoted a very literal interpretation of scripture (Bible Answer Man was my favorite on the radio, if that gives you an idea), I figured that I had to believe in a literal 6-day creation to be a “real” Christian. I agree. The Christian's faith is not placed in a literal interpretation of a 6-day creation. Our faith is in Jesus Christ. That being said:I’d always wanted to be a scientist, and I love living things, but I love God too, so when I graduated from high school, I went to a church-affiliated liberal arts college and double-majored in Biology and Religion. With the help of great Christian friends, great professors, pastors, etc., I grew and learned a LOT about the world, God, and the Bible. (And I learned that I didn’t know nearly as much as I thought I knew! And there’s so much I still don’t know.) I read the Bible and prayed more than ever. By the time I graduated, I was convinced that the Genesis creation accounts did not need to be interpreted literally for me to be a “real” Christian, and it made perfect sense to me (scientifically and theologically) that God had created life using an evolutionary process.I would like to make a point by a question only for you to mull over from time to time as you continue in your studies and your Christian walk.

By what process can you decide to not take science "literally" and consider yourself a "real" scientist?

It would seem to me that science is a real "literal" pursuit without metaphors and such. Yet you seem perfectly willing to interpret scientific evolution (modern synthesis, or by what other name it is known) as some kind of non-literal incomplete theory that must have some kind of supernatural basis. Now, my fear is that sooner or later you will begin to accept science's viewpoint as literal and give up on your understanding of God as creator. That really isn't the goal of science but it certainly seems the goal of some who teach science.

BTW, I believe that of course we can be scientists and believe in God.

God Bless!

[Lamplighter]

I hope you don't go around saying this a lot :rolleyes:

Something wrong with the truth?:confused

[Xel'Naga]

Something wrong with the truth?:confused

There's nothing wrong with the truth... Just don't know if that's what I'd consider what you said.

[Luke34]

Here is the problem with evolution theories in a nutshell. We are not getting smarter each century, we are getting dumber. This is due to the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere, and it has been declining ever since the flood of Noah due to the canopy being removed from the Earth by God. Since oxygen has been decreasing over the last several thousand years, people are being born with less brain cells every year. We aren't getting smarter over time, we are getting dumber.

Modern technology has nothing to do with smarter people, it has to do with God allowing mankind to expand his knowledge in the last days. Man can't destroy the Earth with swords and spears, but man can destroy the Earth with Nuclear weapons operated by computer systems.

Ever wonder why technology was at a literal standstill until the late 19th century? People had far less brain power in the 19th century compared to the 1st century. It's because God kept mankind from having Earth destroying power until he was ready for mankind to have it in order to accomplish his will.

Modern scientific observation combined with God's Word proves a young universe, but wicked men still refuse to believe in God, and this wicked scientific lie of Billions of years that Darwin started, has overwhelmed the church as well.

Fact is, you can't cram billions of years into Genesis and make it float. Either Moses is right, or Darwin is right, and both can't be.
At four in the morning, I can't get a handle on the weirdness of most of your post, so I'll just correct the few attempts at actual facts (besides "people are getting dumber," which you'd need to provide...some kind of support for before I'd bother to address it):
*Technology was not "at a literal standstill" until the late 19th century, for two reasons: a) "Literal standstill" means something that is literally, physically standing in one place; b) Even leaving out everything before it, inventions of the early/mid-1800s include: the electromagnet, the steam engine, photography, the typewriter, the microphone, gas-powered lighting, electric lighting, the battery, the telegraph, dental anesthesia, the pneumatic tire, the bicycle, the stapler, pasteurization, the internal combustion engine, and dynamite (source (http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa111100a.htm)).
*Darwin didn't "start" the notion of an old earth: He was influenced by the conclusions of geologist Charles Lyell, and the concept had certainly existed before that time.
*Intelligence, or lack of same, has nothing to do with evolution's truth or falsity.

[Lamplighter]

*Intelligence, or lack of same, has nothing to do with evolution's truth or falsity.

It has to due with the abundance, or lack thereof, of healthy brain cells.

The higher the level of clean oxygen in any given area, the more brain cells a person will be born with. Fact.

[teddyv]

It has to due with the abundance, or lack thereof, of healthy brain cells.

The higher the level of clean oxygen in any given area, the more brain cells a person will be born with. Fact.
Now all you have to do is back that up with something other than your opinion.

[Lamplighter]

Now all you have to do is back that up with something other than your opinion.

The process is called Anoxia, and it's a slow loss of oxygen to the brain.

While no danger exists that our O2 reserve will be depleted completely, nevertheless the O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining--so slowly that a sufficiently accurate technique to measure this change wasn't developed until the late 1980s. Ralph Keeling (http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/keelin01/keelin01.html), its developer, showed that between 1989 and 1994 the O2 content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. Considering that the atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million, one can see why this measurement proved so difficult.

Now if you take this over 4000 or more years since the flood, you can see we are getting dumber at birth, compared to thousands of years ago.

[teddyv]

The process is called Anoxia, and it's a slow loss of oxygen to the brain.

While no danger exists that our O2 reserve will be depleted completely, nevertheless the O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining--so slowly that a sufficiently accurate technique to measure this change wasn't developed until the late 1980s. Ralph Keeling (http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/keelin01/keelin01.html), its developer, showed that between 1989 and 1994 the O2 content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. Considering that the atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million, one can see why this measurement proved so difficult.

Now if you take this over 4000 or more years since the flood, you can see we are getting dumber at birth, compared to thousands of years ago.
Thank you for offering something.

I had a look through the supplied link which only seems to be discussing O18/O16 isotopic ratios rather than a decrease in the the actual oxygen content of the atmosphere. I grant that I may have missed it as the linked article is full of formulae, etc. Can you more specifically point to the conclusion of that atmospheric oxygen concentration is decreasing?

[Luke34]

It has to due with the abundance, or lack thereof, of healthy brain cells. OK...but we were talking about evolution, not "the abundance, or lack thereof, of healthy brain cells." None of this has anything to do with anything.

The higher the level of clean oxygen in any given area, the more brain cells a person will be born with. Fact. "Fact: You are drinking grape soda. You never drink grape soda. Fact: You are talking to Jim. You never talk to Jim."

[Luke34]

While no danger exists that our O2 reserve will be depleted completely, nevertheless the O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining--so slowly that a sufficiently accurate technique to measure this change wasn't developed until the late 1980s. Ralph Keeling (http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/keelin01/keelin01.html), its developer, showed that between 1989 and 1994 the O2 content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. Considering that the atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million, one can see why this measurement proved so difficult. Oh, and by the way, you can't extrapolate from a five-year measurement that the earth's oxygen supply has been declining for its entire history. Based on available evidence, geologists suspect that the percentage of atmospheric oxygen has fluctuated throughout the atmosphere's existence. The 1989-1994 decline was attributed to the burning of fossil fuels (source: Columbia University (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm)), which obviously has not always occurred, and certainly not at the present rate. So you can't say that the oxygen decline over five 20th-century years is a historical constant.

[Lamplighter]

So you can't say that the oxygen decline over five 20th-century years is a historical constant.

And you can't say it's not either. They haven't been documenting it for the last 4000 years afterall.

[Luke34]

And you can't say it's not either. They haven't been documenting it for the last 4000 years afterall. "You can't say it's not"? What kind of an argument is that supposed to be? Even if you take the 4,000-years figure for the age of the earth, five years is still only .125% of the planet's existence (the correct figure, of course, is .000000125%), and there's no reason the oxygen decline would be constant, given that it is most likely caused by modern inventions. And geologists have determined that the oxygen rate has fluctuated over earth's history, so, actually, it's definitely not a constant. At all. And no one ever said it was.

[Studyin'2Show]

"You can't say it's not"? What kind of an argument is that supposed to be? Not to single you out Luke because I know many see it this way but, why does this have to be an argument? Can't followers of Yeshua simply have a discussion and share ideas? There's really no reason for us to be so adversarial, is there? When it moves to the level where sides have to be taken and lines are drawn, I believe it moves away from what is actually edifying to the body of Messiah toward something that looks more like what the world has to offer. I'd like to encourage everyone to move away from this attitude of us against them and move toward an attitude of sharing ideas with love. :) This may seem at first like an impossible request until you remember that with God NOTHING is impossible! ;)

God Bless!

[GitRDunn]

Not to single you out Luke because I know many see it this way but, why does this have to be an argument? Can't followers of Yeshua simply have a discussion and share ideas? There's really no reason for us to be so adversarial, is there? When it moves to the level where sides have to be taken and lines are drawn, I believe it moves away from what is actually edifying to the body of Messiah toward something that looks more like what the world has to offer. I'd like to encourage everyone to move away from this attitude of us against them and move toward an attitude of sharing ideas with love. :) This may seem at first like an impossible request until you remember that with God NOTHING is impossible! ;)

God Bless!
Don't worry, I don't think he was using argument with the connotation of a strong debate or a fight, I believe he is using meaning that person's statement.

[Studyin'2Show]

Don't worry, I don't think he was using argument with the connotation of a strong debate or a fight, I believe he is using meaning that person's statement.That's why I don't want to single out Luke but to rather remind everyone that there should be no 'us' and 'them' mentality in this since we are ALL disciples of Christ. It should just be US having an edifying discussion on which we do not need to all agree. ;)

God Bless!

[teddyv]

That's why I don't want to single out Luke but to rather remind everyone that there should be no 'us' and 'them' mentality in this since we are ALL disciples of Christ. It should just be US having an edifying discussion on which we do not need to all agree. ;)

God Bless!
I do agree S2S, but when someone makes a strong statement with no backup then I would want them to offer something so we can make an educated opinion. I am not willing to just accept any old thing someone thinks is true because they are also a brother or sister in Christ. Challenging each other in this manner does not have to be confrontation or argumentative, but that does not give everyone a free pass to believe in anything they want. I believe Paul was quite vigorous in his arguments with Peter and Barnabus at one time or another. If someone makes heretical or grossly misused Scripture on this board do we not see very strong/aggresive responses to these even though they are meant to be corrective or cautionary?

The poster that led to Luke34's posts has stated several unconventional things as fact with no source that supports the assertions. Should this just be passed off as a disagreement?

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

Cheers.

[Lamplighter]

"You can't say it's not"? What kind of an argument is that supposed to be? Even if you take the 4,000-years figure for the age of the earth, five years is still only .125% of the planet's existence (the correct figure, of course, is .000000125%), and there's no reason the oxygen decline would be constant, given that it is most likely caused by modern inventions. And geologists have determined that the oxygen rate has fluctuated over earth's history, so, actually, it's definitely not a constant. At all. And no one ever said it was.

Read my original post in this thread again. I said that before the flood, a canopy was over the Earth, which held much more oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. It had never rained before the flood. Once it rained for many days in the flood, the canopy was lost, and massive amounts of oxygen left the atmosphere. The 4000 years I mentioned was not the age of the Earth, it was the time that has passed more or less since the flood of Noah, without the canopy over the Earth.

Sorry for the lack of my clarification on my part.

I don't think the Earth is 6000 years old, but I "SURE" don't think the Earth is Billions or eben millions of years old. My best estimation is the Earth is no older then 16000 years, and I think it's under this number myself.

I could be wrong, or I could be right. Only God knows for sure, because no man does.

[GitRDunn]

I do agree S2S, but when someone makes a strong statement with no backup then I would want them to offer something so we can make an educated opinion. I am not willing to just accept any old thing someone thinks is true because they are also a brother or sister in Christ. Challenging each other in this manner does not have to be confrontation or argumentative, but that does not give everyone a free pass to believe in anything they want. I believe Paul was quite vigorous in his arguments with Peter and Barnabus at one time or another. If someone makes heretical or grossly misused Scripture on this board do we not see very strong/aggresive responses to these even though they are meant to be corrective or cautionary?

The poster that led to Luke34's posts has stated several unconventional things as fact with no source that supports the assertions. Should this just be passed off as a disagreement?

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

Cheers.
Well put and I have to agree with that.

[Studyin'2Show]

The poster that led to Luke34's posts has stated several unconventional things as fact with no source that supports the assertions. Should this just be passed off as a disagreement?

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

Cheers.No, I have no problem with requesting a source. I do that all the time whether I agree with the poster's position or not. Iron sharpens iron. :) We edify each other when we challenge ourself and others. We break each other down when it becomes about proving ourselves right and another wrong. I have seen this topic discussed wonderfully where one can say, I believe thus and this is why, and another can say, I don't believe thus because I don't accept facts x, y, & z. Then the first can say, facts x, y, & z are supported by abc. This is why I accept thus. And so on. As soon as one thinks the other is dumb for believing thus or not believing thus and starts insinuating as much, the discussion goes downhill fast. The fact is that there are brilliant people on both sides of this issue. By the same token, there are those who are not very bright on both sides of this issue. I am happy when we are able to have edifying discussions without bringing up either. ;) Thanks for your input.

God Bless!