Virginia troopers resign over no-Jesus prayer policy
Six Virginia troopers who serve as chaplains stepped down from their jobs to protest a policy banning references to Jesus Christ in public prayers.
The policy is supported by Democrat Va. Gov. Tim Kaine.
Via CBN:
“There were several of us who felt that because of our convictions. about what the Bible says, we couldn’t agree to go along with a generic prayer policy,” said 13-year trooper Rex Carter, who works in Southwest Virginia.
Republican lawmakers in the state concurred, arguing that the new restrictions are a violation of the First Amendment and an attack on Christianity.
“For those of us who understand the importance of religion in American life and value the free expression of religion as one of our essential rights, the Kaine administration’s directive is disappointing and disheartening,” House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said.
“Censoring what these chaplains can say is a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of expression,” Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr., said.
The former state trooper is currently putting together an online petition to get the police department to rescind the new rule.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Professor: ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ Promotes Bullying
December 5, 2011 04:39 PM by Doug Powers
136 Comments
PC Educator of the Week: Thanksgiving, Columbus Day are Insensitive Holidays
October 15, 2011 12:06 PM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
In Australia, a chilling verdict against free speech
September 27, 2011 10:58 PM by Michelle Malkin
62 Comments
McDonalds CEO: The Clown Stays, Food Nazis!
May 20, 2011 04:39 PM by Doug Powers
119 CommentsWho’s Up for $50 Light Bulbs?
May 17, 2011 02:24 PM by Doug Powers
126 Comments
The Fine: $100 — The Offense: Reciting the Gettysburg Address
February 23, 2011 01:52 PM by Doug Powers
127 Comments
Bill Clinton and George HW Bush Chair New ‘National Institute for Civil Discourse’
February 21, 2011 03:32 PM by Doug Powers
206 Comments
Categories: Political Correctness
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» National Review to Newt: Get outAmSpecBlog
» Explosion Near Israeli Embassy in India
Provine doesn’t speak for my ethics or morals. Nor does he speak for my understanding of the implications of evolution. I won’t speak for him, either.
I stand by what I said: morality and ethics do not require a god or God.
the dow is down 64 points or so…THE SKY IS FALLING I NEED THE GUVMINT TO SAVE ME
please.
Well, thanks for the sanctimony, Ilovemycountry. Because the people on this thread are incapable of processing multiple topics throughout the day.
This is just friendly back and forth.
We’re paying attention to other news, too. (even sports!)
but you’re saying two different things:
morality and ethics do not require God, but then of course morality and ethics are whatever you say they are…there is no ultimate right or wrong..
evolution does address morality and ethics, all aspects of human behavior.
Just as a way of background, this grew out of a court case in Fredericksburg, VA. City council meetings open with a prayer. Mr. Turner is a council member who is also an ordained minister. In his opening prayers he referred to Jesus Christ and had been doing so for some time. At one point another council member objected to this. The Mayor instituted a new policy that only a nondenominational prayer could be used and you could not refer to Jesus. Mr. Turner refused to abide by that new rule and challenged it in court. He lost when the court said the new rule did not violate his free speech rights. Mr. Turner remains on the city council and has followed the rule since losing the court case.
thats true on this thread..I’ve tried amazon a few times…the atheists over there are foaming at the mouth…
C’mon. Morality and ethics go beyond what I say they are. I have to live among others. (In this thread, and because I actually need to earn my paycheck (and eat lunch) I can’t go into moral philosophy, and if I could, I doubt that we would agree on this, but maybe at some point when the topic arises again…)
SoonerMarine, have you heard of plans to appeal the decision?
Ilovemycountry: It doesn’t suprise me that an Obama support would support suppression of speech and religon.
ZA: If you’re right, and you truly believe you’re right, then why come here to belittle us believers who take comfort and confidence in knowing there is a force greater than ourselves, that loves and looks out for us? Really, what’s the point?
I believe in the spirit world because I have SEEN it at work. As have many of the christians here.
very true…btw the darkness is very real and very frightening…
I have seen both.
Then you and your fauxssiah have nothing to fear but fear itself. Landslide victory for the zero!
/sarc
zero, good luck with that Pink Unicorn on judgement day. I don’t know how many times on the Discovery Channel, Nat Geo and other programs where the “experts” are wondering “if” they have found the missing link. So far none of them have. So it takes faith to believe that the universe just spontaneously popped into existence all by itself. Nobody has to prove to you that Zeus does not shoot lightning from his fingertips. You are welcome to believe what you wish. So are the Christians welcome to believe what they wish. And unless you can prove that you are right, I would not ridicule someone elses faith.
StanW:
I will dismiss with the veil of pleasant discourse at this point. When it comes to an understanding of science, I AM superior to you. As is any scientist in the field worth his salt. It is the height of arrogance on your part to presume that you are right and countless scientists over countless years are simply wrong. Especially considering you don’t even know what a scientific theory is. There is no debate here and it is you that are close-minded, or perhaps, so open-minded your brain fell out. I wouldn’t bother to debate with a lunatic that argues the Earth is flat (and yes they do exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society ) it is a similar situation here.
Sambo:
Or perhaps I would wonder why croc-o-ducks don’t exist? There is nothing about evolution that suggests ape-man must exist. Only that ape and man had a common ancestor that once existed in the past.
A logical person might wonder why God even bothered with dinosaurs, or Neanderthal’s, or homo-erectus, or Tiktaalik, or countless others.
Right4life:
I don’t, as I said, I am an atheist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge there are people that are both religious and accept evolution?
“It’s a conspiracy!” Utter nonsense.
Funny you mention PZ Meyers, wasn’t he banned from the opening of Ben Stein’s movie? Oh, what delicious irony.
As for the rest of your post is this the 3rd or 4th time we’ve been through that exact same quote? I forget.
DBNinKY
I have no problem with your religion and I said as much earlier. If you want to believe God used evolution as the means I have no problem at all with that.
I do have a problem, however with America becoming a nation of people ignorant of science. Please see my post in #178. that might answer your question as to why I “belittle” people here.
I don’t know what program you watched on discovery, but the problem is not “where is the missing link?” The problem is that there are so many different ape / man / chimp / proto-human fossils that they can’t tell which one belongs where exactly in the tree. This is true of many species.
It doesn’t take faith to believe that things pop into existence by themselves. All it takes is a rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics.
I may be welcome to believe “Zeus shoots lightning bolts” but if I did I’d certainly never be a successful scientist. I would also be an idiot.
I wonder if people that believed the Earth was flat claimed that “their faith was being ridiculed?” Of course they did.
As far as judgment day: If your God does exist and he sends me to hell just because I didn’t believe in Him then truly he is a bit of an asshole, don’t you think?
BBL, work to do.
it’s not that I am offended by the idea of hell, since yeah, I don’t believe in it. “Offended” might have been the wrong choice of words. How about, I find it extremely obnoxious when people tell me I’m going to hell or tell me I am an immoral person (or assume I am a liberal.)
I was mostly just trying to point out why non-believers might not want to just sit quietly through public prayers, as someone upthread suggested they should.
they believe in ‘theistic evolution’ which is not evolution. its not taught in schools, its just a fig leaf so they can gain approval from their secular friends.
comparing PZ myers not being allowed to view a private screening of a movie to someone losing their job is laughable.
what happened to sternberg and gonzales is the utter truth. why would you be so supportive of such fascist tactics?
could be 100 times, the truth is the truth, just because you can’t handle it….oh well.
blockquote> The problem is that there are so many different ape / man / chimp / proto-human fossils that they can’t tell which one belongs where exactly in the tree. This is true of many species
yeah the evolutionists are clueless, thanks for admitting it.
and why would He want someone like you around anyway? given what you feel about Him? never get between a fool and the fire….
there is no freedom FROM obnoxious opinions in the constitution. sorry, but libs want to protect themselves from things they disagree with like opinions, cigarette smoke, etc.
This is slightly different from your last response which was – you would tell him that He didn’t give you enough evidence. If that’s what you think you will say when you meet the Creator of the universe. The jokes is on you. Besides, you think your wife worships an asshole? Wow. Just wow.
Thanks for the clarification.
I don’t recall anyone here telling you any of those things.
I think in the First Amendment, “Establishment” is used as a noun, not as a verb. Thus: RESPECTING the establishment. In no way did I say I thought a religion was being established. But a religion is being sanctioned and therefore could be perceived as being preferred.
Do you really think I agree with that practice?
No, I certainly don’t think the SCOTUS is infallible. But this is a common interpretation of the establishment clause.
I see Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony is in full use here in the U.S. If one wishes to take control of a society, you must change the way people think at the most basic levels, the very foundations of their worldview. For example: abortion. Sarah Palin is lauded by so many as the pro-life candidate, but they referred to her “tough decision” to have Trig and her daughter’s “courageous choice” to have her child. We’re playing by their rules with sentiments like these. We’ve acknowledged that there is a choice and that we “choose life”, as the bumper sticker says. If we acknowledge the very existence of a choice, then we have lost.
The scenario here is just one more example. We’re brought up to believe that we should respect all other ideas solely because we’re told that all ideas have intrinsic worth. Not every idea is a good or right idea, hence not every religion/philosophy is the right one. We’ve been taught to abandon reason for the sake of “openness”. Ergo, we’ve convinced ourselves that since there is no one right answer (which contradicts the law of non-contradiction), we must accept all religions/views, hence the nonsense of separation of church and state, which even many churches now accept to their own demise. From the Enlightenment (a very ironic term) to now, we’ve seen countless attempts to change the way we think, from how we view God, the Bible, Creation, sanctity of life, how to educate our children, how to manage our money, the purpose and goals of life, purpose of government, and even the very way man relates to his fellow man. From a perspective of warfare, one has to admit the sheer brilliance of such a multigenerational strategy. Screwtape has certainly done his homework.
Not all of us are voting for McCain, or for Obama for that matter, but that’s another issue.
Well, someone on the first page said that non-belivers are going to hell, several people have questioned the morality of non-believers and right4life has called me a liberal 2 or 3 times. But as he correctly pointed out… there is no freedom from obnoxious opinions or obnoxious persons (nor did I suggest there should be).
hmm, you have to accept them in the sense of, there are a lot of people out there with different views, and you have to share the world with them, so what are you going to do? Fly planes into buildings when they don’t agree with you?
But you don’t have to accept anything in the sense of believing it to be valid. So it’s kind of a silly complaint.
Which religion would you like the government to sponsor? Let me guess… your own?
since it sponsors atheism via the public schools teaching of evolution, a little turnabout is fair play don’t you think?
Right4life:
I will assume what you say is true, though I’ll bet there is another side to that story. People that prove they are unworthy of their job tend to get fired. There is no “fascist” tactics here. These people are more than welcome and completely allowed to write books about their nonsense and their “experience” and no doubt make tons of money. They don’t, however, deserve to be teaching or practicing science anymore then someone who thinks “laying on of hands” cures disease deserves to practice medicine at your local hospital.
No, science grows and refines.
So, let me be sure I understand you… your God will condemn a decent and moral person to hell regardless of how well they lived their life just because they don’t believe in him?
30 pcs:
It is no different from my last response. My wife doesn’t think I am going to hell, hence the God she worships doesn’t seem to be an asshole. If she is not Christian by your definition then so be it. Please stop twisting what I say and indirectly disparaging my wife. If my wife was anywhere near the religious zealot right4life is, I would have never married her.
Back to right4life:
Then should we teach all creation myths or only the ones that happen to be the religion of the majority of students in the class?
Could someone please tell me why there is a question about a prayer involving mention of Jesus Christ?
Who are those objecting to mention of His name?
Why would someone attend any ceremony that included an obvious Christian leader/pastor/minister giving the prayer & be surprised?
I really don’t get it.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if I attended Temple & the Rabbi left out mention of Jesus.
wighttrasch:
See comment #11 by Mookie.
you can read it for yourself:
from the washingtonpost
you’d be surprised at how many doctors believe that prayer works. oh yes the gatekeepers of ‘science’ have to ‘protect’ us po dumb rubes…please. they’re protecting their faith, darwinism. because it sure can’t stand up to the criticism. thats why they have to silence the opposition.
first, who are you to judge if someone is ‘moral’ or ‘decent’? do you know whats in a man’s heart? no man is capable of making that judgement, it is arrogant presumption to think you can.
the short answer is yes…Jesus said ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life, NO ONE comes to Father, but by Me’
look at it this way, if your son died to save someone in 9/11, then at the funeral comes up and spits in your face, instead of thanking you…what would you do?
well since they’re already paying to teach the evolution myth….why not?
Earlier comments included the following:
“I guess there is no point in saying a prayer in public or private if you can’t refer to Jesus. My Bible says that Jesus is the one who intercedes for us. Therefore the prayer doesn’t make it all the way to God without going through Jesus.”
That’s not what my Bible says.
“If one can’t pray to our Creator and Savior, Jesus, what’s the point of praying? All else are demonic forces bound for the pit of eternal damnation.”
“…so to whom do they pray?”
God.
I’m a thoroughgoing conservative – hawk on defense, capitalist economically, traditional values. I’ve paid a heavy price in my life publicly fighting leftism in academia. But try to ram your religion down my throat and I’m going to fight back. I manage to follow my religion quite well, thank you very much, without coercing others to participate in my prayers.
Incidentally, Jesus spoke about the hypocrisy of those who demanded public attention to their religious formalities, rather than sincerely expressing their prayers in private, as he recommended. But, “Why do you call me lord, lord, but you don’t do what I ask?”
So keep it up. Whine about how you are unable to pray publicly (meaning force others to acknowledge the supremacy of your religion) – and you will turn off the independent voters who are trying to make a decision between McCain and Obama. There are plenty of ignorant people who think that a vote for McCain is a vote to establish your religion in violation of the Constitution. Thanks to comments like the above, they will be confirmed in their beliefs, and they will choose Obama to prevent such an establishment.
right4life:
So? The instant any doctor espouses the idea that prayer should be given equal time in medical school as an “alternative to traditional medicine” is the point they should be kicked out of thier profession.
Likewise, for scientists and “intelligent design.”
Unless you are a moral relativist, I am just as capable of that judgement as you are.
Yes, but you see, I don’t believe Jesus died for my sins. Me and a sizeable portion of decent, kind people on Earth don’t believe Jesus died for their sins either.
Oh goody, so you want to teach them all? Here’s a few samples of what we can expect in your esteemed institution of higer learning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
And on and on and on…
My question is still: why ask a chaplain to ‘offer’ ‘prayers’, if you don’t wish christianity to be involved?!
Ask a lay-person to do it.
Indeed. Why not a layperson?
Without God’s tenants, commandments and statutes, morals and ethics are relative based only on an individual’s experiences.
Naturally, this begs the question, which God and which tenants and commandments?
That aside, morals and ethics are only relative if you are a moral relativist. It is possible to believe in objective morality that is “discovered” through rational discourse and evolved empathy.
This is in fact precisely what goes on and then reason why we pick and choose what parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, which are “metaphors,” and which are “outdated.”
Forgive me that I did not read this whole thread but tell me, what morals and ethics do you ascribe?
The Trinity of course!
That is purely a point of view. There is no truth in it. Nothing is possible that God does not will it. You cannot get up in the morning that God does not will it. Your brain does not function but that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) does not will it. Your brain and soul can denounce this, but it doesn’t make what you say any more real or true.
What I say is based on faith and you cannot reason faith. It is a gift.
P.S. God’s truth is bigger than your reasoning brain and the state of your soul and mine too.
I’m living in Europe right now, and I’ve spent the past year travelling around it. I’m fairly certain that secularism is doing more good than harm. Homosexuals are not persecuted by either the left or the right over here. Nope, neither side feels the need to bow to supposed Christians and their despicable hatred of gay people. And that’s because of secularism. Also, women who make the tough decision to have an abortion are not harassed at clincs, like they were back when I was in Texas. And I could go on and on about how wonderful secularism is, but I know the MM crowd is a lost cause on that one.
I’m a Chrisitan (though the behaviour of my fellow Christians in the Evangelical churches repulses me) and I understand how important secularism is. Despite what Obama and McCain assert, there really isn’t a place for religion in politics. Everything works so much better when politicians go with what makes sense, rather than what religion dictates. This goes for America and the rest of the world.
I hadn’t planned on flying anything into any structures or starting any concentration camps. The wellspring for the worldview I espouse does not logically support doing either, as opposed to some other worldviews. I’m merely saying that it’s the idea of “openness” is what’s killing us. What happened to educating ourselves for the sake of finding a “better” life? We no longer search for which idea or cultural points are best, rather we say that the very question of whether an idea is right or wrong, better or worse, is the cause for hatred. As Allan Bloom states of openness, “the point is not correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right all.” “Openness used to be the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying reason’s power. The unrestrained and thoughtless pursuit of openness, without recognizing the inherent political, social, or cultural problem of openness as the goal of nature, has rendered openness meaningless. Cultural relativism destroys both one’s own and the good. Culture, hence, closedness, reigns supreme. Openness to closedness is what we teach.”
~”The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom
But if we refuse to acknowledge, as a society or as individuals, that some ideas are better than others, then we have lost. If we accept the idea of cultural relativism, if we accept Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” as the logical conclusion to this worldview as our paradigm by which to live our lives, then what have we left? Cultural relativism is the absence of, and counter to, reason, yet it is so greatly espoused by our culture. If a society has no philosophical or moral foundation, then there is no room for cultural growth, no tools by which to police itself, hence leading to a properly cultivated environment for Marxist viewpoints to take hold.
All I can say about all of this dribble is “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
The same one that most rational well meaning people subscribe to: the one that pretty much says, don’t kill, don’t rape, be a good neighbor, “do onto other’s”, etc. Throw in some Kant too (do not do that which you do not will to be universal law), I guess.
On this point we certainly agree.
you know you really are a fascist. How about kicking out all you lying atheist wackos that have perverted science to mean atheism.
per our last conversation, just more proof that you are your own little god. but your judgement doesn’t count. you don’t have the power to do much of anything….HE on the other hand, has the ability, and the POWER, as you will find out to your horror..
thats your choice…but don’t whine about having to live with the results of that choice.
I think we should just present the evidence, which SCARES you darwiniacs to death, thats why you have to go to court to silence anyone who dares disagree with your hellish faith! you darwiniacs have lost the argument, all you are doing now is trying to enforce your faith through the courts, intimidation, and fear.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao thought the same thing!!
the only thing that is despicable around here is your left-wing lies. wacko.
well, Zeroangel – I don’t know about any of those things you say..but I’m over and out of this thread. Have a good weekend.
go ahead and tell us the wonders of cutting a hole in a babie’s head and sucking out the brains!
and then tell us how great it is to put your opponents in the gulag, in a slave labor camp! or just starving them to death, as in the Ukraine.
Then tell us how great it is to regulate what people think and say, as your heroic ‘gay activists’ want to do!
then tell us about the ‘wonders’ of killing tens of millions of people all to enforce a lie.
this should be good!
you may try reading it before making comments about it. its not hard to figure out its called common sense.
oh and of course we’ve seen the results of ‘enlightened’ evolutionary thought…in the gulag, and the extermination camps of nazi germany, all to create the ‘master race’
its a wonderful legacy of science….along with the racism, the eugenics….you should be proud!
Right4life:
Your comments deserve to stand on thier own, espeically:
I am not the frightened one here.
you’re desperately afraid of the truth, its obvious. you can’t stand any criticism of your hairygod darwin, and want to kick out any who dare disagree with your hellish faith in him.
you’re not afraid of God now??? you will be…..
Why do you believe this? By what standard to you judge someone as “well-meaning?”
BTW: I fear God, and I’m His…only a fool does not…the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
This ridiculous point is made every time. What you are failing to understand is that religion is the exact reason that Stalin and Mao were able to commit the horrific crimes they did. The controlled through fear and reverence, and deified themselves, which is exactly how religion works. Mao and Stalin thrived because they used religious ideas.
zero said: …..
zero, you have it wrong. God doesn’t send folks to hell. It’s free will, baby. You choose it for yourself. Don’t blame someone else for your own bad choices. Nobody is twisting your arm.
whats ridiculous about the truth? (to anyone but a lib)
this is so amusing. all atheists are their own little gods…Stalin had the power to enforce it…what he did is what always happens ultimately when secularists gain power.
Okay, so it’s obvious you’re an unhinged, paranoid blinkered social conservative, so there’s no point in having a discussion with you.
There’s one huge difference between Stalin/Mao requiring reverence and God requiring reverence: Stalin/Mao don’t deserve it and God does. If God exists (I’m not getting into the arguments for the existence of God yet), then wouldn’t it make sense that as the creator of the universe; the creator of time, space and matter; a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, that he would deserve our respect? Stalin/Mao don’t have such accolades.
Right4life:
Honestly. There is little difference between you and a Muslim fanatic that imagines the victims of 9-11 are burning in hell simply because they weren’t Muslim. You have every right to teach whatever you want in a private setting. Just don’t expect to receive an advanced degree or be respected by other advanced degree holders. Don’t expect the state to decide to hire you on as a teacher. Also, don’t expect to receive a license to practice medicine if you believe “laying on of hands” trumps surgery (for example).
SendMe:
The aforementioned common sense is a good place to start. A more accurate representation would be chemical reactions that go on in my brain that tell me it is good for the species to have empathy for other humans. We also see social structure in many other animals; particularly, our closest cousins.
Ron:
So, my decision to lead a decent life, have empathy, and be kind to others is a bad choice; only because I do so for different reasons?
Anyone that is still reading: please take careful note of the comments of Right4life, SendMe, and Ron on this topic. These are the people in our political party that we should be rightfully ashamed of. They are the members of our base that make us all look like fools. They are no different then the base that the Democrats are ashamed of (chronic welfare cases, ne’er do wells, criminals and others) in this regard.
typical wacko lib troll.
1. Show me how I’ve sounded like a fool. Show me the error of my questions, premises, and conclusions. Neither Ron nor Right4life speak for me.
2. I’m a member of no political party.
when are you darwiniacs going to evolve some new lines? how long do you think you’d spout of your atheist line in a muslim republic? whats really laughable is you actually believe such drivel.
I have an advanced degree, I’m sure if you were one of my professors you’d try to silence me like the good little nazi you are.
this whole debate just reinforces that you darwiniacs cannot stand scrutiny. you’ve lost the debate, thats why darwiniacs have to try to silence the opposition. you’re a typical little nazi darwiniac.
didn’t know you were running things…but we’ve had plenty of experience, and over 100 million dead in the last century with such ‘enlightened’ opinion as your running things…
you don’t need anyone to make you look like a fool zero. you have no idea. *snicker*
you blue-bloods are only good for bending over for the dems.
you’re a piece of trash zero…zero that describes you perfectly
he can’t do any of that. he does not have the intellect, its rather obvious. he’s a typical darwiniac, all he can is spout the party line, trying to get any thought out of him is like talking to a wacko dem, which he probably is one.
Whoa,liar. I never said that living a decent life, having empathy and being kind to others was a bad choice. You can read, but you have a comprehension problem. I said if you choose not to accept God’s salvation through Christ that you have chosen your own path and not to blame God for that choice. You’re silly. Look, you obviously have heard the word of God and you have rejected it. That is your perogative. I don’t call you names for it. You already have big enough problems. Hope you figure them out.
If you are so full of empathy and kindness then what was this?
oh and zero, there are many many more of us out here than you can imagine…..
SendMe:
Perhaps I have unfairly categorized you. If you do not believe creationism or Intelligent Design belongs in a science classroom, then I apologize.
Right4life:
I did quite well considering I was well-armed and with other similarly well-armed folks. Glad I live in America were we aren’t a theocracy.
So? It’s obviously not in biology or medicine.
Strawman, though I doubt you see why.
Sticks and stones… *yawn*
Yes, this is what worries me for the future of science and education in America.
Ron:
I am not blaming God for anything, I have no reason to believe he exists. Even if he did, I can’t imagine he would be as cruel and horrible as you describe.
That fact that I have empathy doesn’t mean I am incapable of having strong opinions on what is good for the future of education in America.
more darwiniac drivel, how predictable…when are you gonna evolve those new lines?
glad I live in america that isn’t a secular state.
your hairygod is a racist, as are most of his followers…he’s a plagiarist too…I can see why you worship someone in your own image…
right4life:
New lines? I think mine are a few thousand years newer then yours.
America is the very definition of a secular state and without a doubt it is in comparison to the aforementioned Muslim states.
If you seriously think you are going to get a rise out of me by calling Darwin a “hairygod” I’m sorry to disappoint. Truth be told I think his beard was a bit ridiculous, but I guess that was a style back then.
uh I just did…*snicker* duhhhhh
Also, the argument that he plagiarized someone else is not without SOME merit, though most historians contend he and Wallace developed the idea in unison. It’s also been argued Wallace came up with it first. Either way, the idea is what is important and it has been refined many times, as has any scientific theory.
I’m sorry no, you didn’t get a rise out of me, and to highlight that point let me reiterate that Darwin’s beard was silly and it’s completely likely that he was not the first to come up with the idea.
Honestly… who uses the phrase “duhhh” on a political forum that is above the age of 14?
Are you 5-years-old, right4life? You certainly act like it …
Why do you believe that ID or creationism should not be discussed along with evolution in science classrooms?
It’s actually comical that right4life thinks he can demean a scientific theory that is accepted by every single scientist and is more or less entirely proven. Hah!
Because that’s not science. It just isn’t science at all. In any sense. It’s religion – it belongs in no classroom. I am outraged every time creationists try to force their false science on impressionable children who are there to learn actual science. How dare you even suggest that science be demeaned and ruined with religious nonsense!
you certainly don’t have the brains or the guts to defend your faith (evolution) and if you did, I’d make you look even more foolish than you do already!!
I’ve argued with darwiniac scientists before, they end in a foam-laced rage, because they can’t defend their hairygod darwin, and neither can you!
darwiniac talking points. do you stomp your little feet when you say that??
laughable, just laughable! the truth REALLY hurts, doesn’t it sonny boy? *snicker*
your hairygod was a racist lying scum, just like his followers!!
you boys are clearly out of your league…but thanks for the laughs!
where you boys go?
do you have to get your darwiniac talking points to reply? waiting for your fax?
I’ve noticed you darwiniacs aren’t very good at quick comebacks…wipe the spittle of your chins, like good little boys, and take a deep breath, thats it…
SendMe:
Please refer to my many previous posts in this thread (and others). In short, ID and creationism will be the downfall of science education in our great country. Teach it in philosophy, not science.
Right4life:
Indeed, but not from us.
I was watching TV and having a beer. I’ll check back in a bit, the commercial is over. I see you are still here hitting refresh and foaming.
thats your comeback?? why don’t you strain real hard, and try to evolve some intelligence!!
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery loser!! *smirk*
this is the best your beloved theory can do…
If only Darwinists could come up with a body of convincing scientific evidence to support Darwin’s theory: after 150 years of assuring us, such evidence surely must exist. As recently as May of this year, the best that a Darwinist as prominent as Professor Francisco Ayala of UC Irvine could come up with as examples of evolution in action was: (1) bacterial resistance to antibiotics; (2) insect resistance to pesticides; and (3) the evolution of fur coloring of desert rodents. (Ayala, “Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (May 2007).)
all that effort, all those lies, to lay such an egg…
ya got nothing, except faith in your racist hairygod!!
oh yeah here explain why the tuatara has not changed with all tha ‘evolving’ goin on…
Tuatara Genes Are Running in Place 03/24/2008
March 24, 2008 — One would expect a living fossil to show extreme stasis at the genetic level. Not so for the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, reported EurekAlert: researchers found that “although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined.”
link
don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath!!
I’ll check back later for your incoherent replies!
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? What is the mechanism for evolution? If man, bats, and dolphins have the same ancestors, based upon homologous structures, then why are the genes that control such structures vastly different between each of these species (e.g. homologous structures should be the result of homologous genetic structures, but they don’t: why?) How do you explain the lack of transitional fossils, an admission of folks like the late Stephen J. Gould?
right4life:
The facts that support evolution are countless. I have done my very best to explain them to you in the past. I will no longer try in this thread. Feel free to believe that this constitutes an inability to “refute” what you say. I have addressed your points before in other threads many times. I have no doubt you’ll check back later. At least wait a few minutes as opposed to two *smile*.
The same goes for you Send_Me. Be assured no one will ever find all the “transitional fossils” since every living organism that ever existed was transitional. Heck, my father is “transitional.” I am truly sorry you don’t understand this, please refer to #178.
One must wonder why God didn’t just create man and all the animals in their present form. Why bother with Cambrian critters and dinosaurs?
I read your prior comments. Here’s my issue: if we were all transition forms, then why are all people at the same stage of evolution without any intermediate forms living? Show me a half-human, a three-quarter human, physically and genetically. Show me the gradual transition from one species to another in the fossil record.
Send_Me said:
As I recall, if you trace the evolution of the Earth – the shifting of continents, changes in the oceans, etc., at the time of the Cambrian explosion, you had certain conditions that were supportive of life (a lot of shallow, warm water areas). As the climate on the Earth has changed over time, some climates support life (greater diversity), and sometimes the global climate makes it difficult for life to flourish (leading to massive extinctions).
Send_Me said:
I don’t want to get into specifics (because I will probably remember some of the details incorrectly), but you do see similarities (for example, in protein sequences) between species that are believed to be closely related on the evolutionary tree. You have these strong similarities even though you could have a variety of proteins that accomplish the same thing – which suggests that there is some relationship between humans & chimps, or mice & guinea pigs, etc.
Send_Me said:
Don’t underestimate the role of ego in academia. You don’t get a big name in academia by concluding “Yup, the old theory is right.” You make a name for yourself by coming up with something new.
Gould’s claim to fame was “punctuated equilibrium.” The question is, is punctuated equilibrium really anything new? He had a vested interest in saying it was, and thus he needed to point to gaps in the fossil record. He was trying to establish a new twist on evolution. But did the theory of evolution need this twist? Basically, all it says is that evolution moves faster at some times, and slower at others. I don’t think it really adds anything of substance.
Send_Me said:
If you look in the fossil record, one thing is perfectly clear – changes in life are gradual. The earliest forms of life are relatively simple. More complex life forms don’t come until much later. Many creationists & IDers misrepresent what happened in the Cambrian explosion – where you have several body plans arise over a “short” period of time (millions of years). You do have the origin of various body plans, but all of these critters resemble each other more than they resemble later life forms.
Look, I am a Bible believing Christian. I believe the Bible is inspired, infallible, inerrant, etc. I believe the 6 days in Genesis 1 are literal. I believe these 6 literal days refer to the recreation of the Holy Land (I recommend checking out Genesis Unbound). I believe the creation account of Adam & Eve are literal and accurate, that they were genetically engineered by God. I also believe mankind evolved, and it was the intermingling of these two lines of humanity that give you the decline in longevity (Genesis 6:1-2). From this point on, the lifespans gradually decrease (if you plot the ages on a graph, it gives you a mathematically significant curve).
I used to be opposed to evolution. In fact, I wasn’t content to merely throw rocks at evolution, I seriously considered going back to school to pursue advanced degrees in biology to refute the theory of evolution once and for all. I spent several months studying the issue in far greater depth than I had previously, and much to my shock, I did discover that there was good evidence for evolution.
People may call me a nonbeliever, a coward, a traitor, someone who is merely looking to get in the good graces of atheists, etc. That is not true. I have been shouted down, had a professor cuss at me in front of the whole class, mocked, ridiculed, etc. for standing (often alone) for my Christian beliefs in hostile territory.
As a preacher, I don’t have to worry about offending atheists. I can be given the boot by my fellow conservative Christians. If I was trying to make my life easy, I would be against evolution. But I have to go where the evidence points. The evidence pointed me to a belief in God. And the evidence points me to a belief that evolution, or something like it, has in fact occurred.
zeroangel is wrong about a lot of things. There is a God. You cannot observe something coming from nothing, since you cannot observe “nothing” (he demonstrates a very basic and common misunderstanding of quantum fluctuations). God doesn’t punish people for not having enough knowledge, He punishes people for not keeping what they do know. Good people don’t go to heaven. Heaven is the perfect reward. Only perfect (Jesus) and forgiven people (the saints) receive the perfect reward. There are different levels of punishment in Hell (Matthew 10:20-24).
I think the religious opposition to evolution is misplaced.
Nice post, Trollman. That was an enjoyable read.
I have never understood the ultimate reason for the ongoing debate between Judeo-Christian beliefs and evolution. They’re in separate spheres to me. It’s good to read about a person of faith who works to harmonize the two spheres of thought. Arguing against evidence or rationalizing doesn’t do much for either position.
Regarding your penultimate paragraph about God: if I agree that there must be a God because something can not be created from nothing according to our understanding of the natural world, then that still doesn’t rationally lead me to a Judeo-Christian(-Islamic-Mormon-Ba’hai-etc) version of God.
I said “if I agree” above, not because I doubt that something can come from nothing, because I do agree with that, but rather because I’m not convinced that the world (meaning the universe) must have had a beginning.
I think the cosmological and teleological arguments that we rely upon are potentially just our own thought limitations. Why a beginning? Why an ending? Why not a perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction, never really repeating exactly, always providing a milieu for life or inanimate structures?
I’m not saying I believe that, I’m just offering it up as another way of thinking. (yeah, yeah, nihilism, no morals, blah, blah…not directed at you, Trollman.)
Even if we accepted that view, it still leaves open the question of why existence? Not “why,” because a reason isn’t necessarily necessary. Perhaps the better question is “How existence?”
What keeps this from being nothing? Mortimer Adler, of all people, proposed this notion as God. God is that power that preserves, that allows the stage for all life and death to play out, be it animal, plant, bacteria, stars, galaxies, or any other active energy producing or consuming engine we’ve yet to discover.
That doesn’t mean that this God is personal or benevolent. We all can project evidence pro and con on that position on practically anything we observe.
(BTW, if the God of the Judeo-Christian religions is supposed to be personal and benevolent then he is the ultimate moral relativist. From my relative perspective, of course.)
You’re repeating your inane talking points from insidious, scheming organisations like Answers in Genesis, right? How sad for you.
Just like the pathetic creationists that doctored a video interview with Dawkins to make it seem like he was stumped when asked a question about evolution (that really was incredibly low) when he had a perfectly correct answer and just like the pathetic attempt to “preach the controversy” even though no such controversy exists, you are simply repeating awkwardly worded questions that come from the exact same organisations. Again, how sad that is for you.
Yes, very interesting Trollman. I am impressed and very happy for you. Thank you for sharing with us all.
One point though:
I am not wrong about quantum fluctuations. We have had this conversation in the past.
You could be said to be correct in saying there is really and truly not such a thing as “nothing.” There are always the laws of physics in a “vacuum.” (I believe you said this exactly before).
However, Aquinas’s proof’s (which is often the context we discuss this) involves an idea that a vacuum constitutes “nothing.” He had no knowledge of quantum physics naturally, and things that happen at the quantum level would have no doubt astounded him, as it as does modern physicists.
I attempt not to distort the definitions of words and wade into meta-physics. It is pointless in my mind. A vacuum is the only thing I can reasonably call “nothing.” Thus, I am correct is saying “something” comes from “nothing.”
Send_Me:
To add to what Trollman said:
You will have to go back to the fossil record to find these half-human’s you describe. There are many. Homo-erectus is one that comes to mind. The issue today is not where is the missing link, but which ones fit where in the evolutionary tree, which ones are our ancestors, and which ones are terminating branches.
DougT:
This is certainly a possibility and is seriously discussed by physicists.
Send_Me:
An afterthought:
I am afraid I didn’t fully addres your question. The reason why these “half-humans” aren’t alive is because they branched off and/or died out.
In fact, depending on how you look at it, they ARE alive. They are chimps and apes and so forth.
Send_Me:
One more thing that occured to me while in the shower:
Chimps are not just “half-human” or “three-quarter human.”
They are 94% human.
I see no one could address my points, no surprise, since all darwiniacs have are ‘just-so’ stories…
this is so wrong. Gould disagreed…
Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?
Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.
I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration
you darwinists really need to keep up on the science..
ps It doesn’t post with the links…
So in this “short” amount of time, we go from dirt to multicellular organisms? How do we get trilobites, a multicellular organism, many with eyes, in the earliest stages of the “fossil record”? If evolution were true, wouldn’t you expect to see them in a much higher strata? Again, can you explain the mechanism for this?
Again, I’ll ask the same questions:
1. What is the mechanism for evolution? 2. If man, bats, and dolphins have the same ancestors, based upon homologous structures, then why are the genes that control such structures vastly different between each of these species (e.g. homologous structures should be the result of homologous genetic structures, but they don’t: why?) Similarities of physical structure necessitate similar genetic structures. For example, if you have genes 1-50, and number gene #5 affects hand structure in one organism, then we’d expect to see the same relationship between the genes and physical structure in a supposedly similar organism.
So you’re allowed to claim intellectual dishonesty of evolutionists, but I am not? I’m very aware of Gould’s “hopeful monster” theory, but again, how was Gould wrong in his assessment that there was no fossil evidence for gradual evolution?
Simple to complex? Please explain then how we find trilobites, a multicellular organism, in many cases with eyes, in this “layer”? I don’t see how me asking this question is “misrepresenting what happened during the Cambrian explosion”.
“Recreation of the Holy Land”? Perhaps you can explain how this is at all Biblical.
Genesis 6:1-3 states: “Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” Please, explain to me how you find anywhere here anything about an “evolved” race of men and a “normal” race of men. (Sure, I’ll check out the book.)
Ad hominems detract from any discussion.
So rather than answering my questions, the questions of a skeptic, you resort to ad hominem fallacies? Why not just answer my questions? Explain to me why I should believe evolution is true in light of the questions I posed. I haven’t “doctored” any videos or misrepresented anything. I’ve just asked questions.
DougT said:
For some, people are married to a particular interpretation. I don’t believe they are in separate spheres – I think they are interconnected. I think divorcing religion and the “real world” leads to the end of one or the other. They are different spheres in one sense, but the spheres overlap and interact with one another.
DougT said:
It doesn’t lead, by itself, to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God, but I think it does establish a theism that is compatible with the Bible, but incompatible with certain other notions of God.
Dr. William Lane Craig has perhaps the most developed formulation of the kalam cosmological argument. He argues that the beginning of the universe implies that:
1. the universe has an uncaused Cause,
2. the Cause is timeless/eternal,
3. the Cause is nonphysical (Spirit)
4. the Cause is powerful
5. the Cause is personal.
The Bible doesn’t say you can figure out the Gospel and that Jesus died for your sins just by looking at nature – the Bible says you need revelation for those things (Romans 10:14-17). But the Bible does teach that you can know at least a few things about God just through looking at the natural world and using common sense (Romans 1:18-32).
According to the Bible, common sense ought to tell you that the statue, the idol you just made isn’t the One that made you. Common sense ought to tell you that murdering and stealing are bad, etc.
DougT said:
Because I think the scientific evidence argues against those things. The evidence that we now have is that the universe began to exist in the finite past, and will continue on in perpetuity, dying a heat death.
DougT said:
The question of existence is one of the most basic, I think. I believe something exists because it is impossible for absolute nothingness exists – if nothing exists, then not even nothingness exists. So the ultimate answer to “Why existence?” is because it could not be otherwise.
Recall that the Name of God in the Bible is “I AM.” When God revealed His Name, He didn’t reference someone or something else (like we normally do – our last names often refer to our father, our town, that we or our ancestors came from), He refers to Himself “I AM that I AM.” It isn’t just that God exists, but that He has the power of existence in Himself, and it could be no other way.
DougT said:
I think the moral system of the God of the Bible is different than what many believe. I don’t believe it can be categorized as relativism in any real sense.
right4life,
Uh, I have to claim ignorance here. Didn’t know I was doing that. What did I say that made you say that?
I was admiring Trollman’s post, not agreeing with it.
Was there something else I said? You’ve got me curious, because I’ve never given evolution (or most any specific scientific discipline) much deep thought.
I’m just a dude with opinions. I abide my lack of knowledge on these subjects.
doug: that was the interviewer who was talking to Gould, it wasn’t directed at you.
but you earlier said:
because evolution is atheism. it denies God. it is a religion, and it is in conflict with the christian view of God, salvation, etc. and there is no middle ground.
according to the synthesis, by Mayr et al, it is mutations that drive evolution. the problem is that no one has even seen a sequence of mutations that ‘add up’ to new forms, types of animals, etc. This is why the ID argument of irreducable complexity is so compelling. evolution comes down to a just-so story.
Send_Me, I don’t want to get into the specifics about evolution. My area of expertise is in the Bible, and to a lesser extent, philosophy. I studied evolution in depth a few years ago, and I studied the subject not to prove to others evolution was true or not, but to determine if there was anything to it or not for myself (to determine if the time investment would be worthwhile).
Weekends are the busiest time of the week for me, and I will be traveling after the weekend, so I am a bit pressed for time at the moment.
Send_Me said:
I’m not saying that you were misrepresenting the Cambrian explosion, but that many of the “professional” Creationists and IDers have. Many of their arguments that I found so convincing I later found to be misleading – misrepresenting the facts. Laymen can get these things wrongs, but experts who make their living discussing these things have no such excuse. Are there problems with evolution? Yes, there are. But on balance, where does it point?
Send_Me said:
I don’t have the time to do the interpretation (Genesis Unbound) justice right now. When I first heard the gist of this interpretation, I thought it sounded ridiculous. I had studied Genesis for years and couldn’t see how he could possibly defend this interpretation. But then I read the book. I can’t guarantee you’ll agree with him, but it will make you rethink what you thought you knew. I wrestled with it for a few months, and over all, I believe of all the many, many interpretations of Genesis, it is in my opinion (Biblically speaking) the best.
Dr. Sailhammer argues that Genesis 1 says that the “land” (he interprets as the Holy Land) was a swampy, desolate wasteland not fit for human habitation (1:2).
In the 4th day, God isn’t creating the Sun, Moon, and stars (after all, you already have light and darkness, day and night, and plants have survived for a whole day – without the warmth of the sun?), but that God is giving them a purpose – to serve as “signs for seasons and for days and years.” This is important, because you had to keep track of seasons, days, and years in order to keep the Law of Moses (the various festivals and ceremonies).
What Genesis tells us is that God takes a worthless land, and transforms it into the Beautiful Land (it is argued that the area of Jerusalem and Israel is the location of the Garden of Eden). God places Adam in the Land, and gives him a Law. When Adam breaks the Law, he is driven from the Land to the East (towards the direction of what would later be Babylon).
This foreshadows how God would place the Hebrew people in the Land, and give them a Law. Eventually, they would break the Law, and be driven from the Land – to the East, to Babylon, the land of captivity.
Again, there is far more in support of this interpretation than I have the time to get into right now.
Send_Me said:
There are two major interpretations of this passage:
1. The sons of God refer to the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of men refer to the descendants of Cain.
2. The sons of God are angels, and the daughters of men are humans.
I do not argue that my current interpretation must be correct, simply that, in my estimation, it has the most explanatory power while creating the fewest problems – I may full well be wrong about all this.
I think it is possible that the sons of God refer to those who were descended from those created through special creation (Adam & Eve). Likewise, the daughters of men could refer to mankind that wasn’t descended from the specially created man & woman (their origin is not addressed, but presumably evolved).
Whatever it means, notice that you have the intermingling of two groups. Right after this, you see the gradual decline in the LONG lifespans to the point where they come down to normal lifespans. Something is going on here that the Bible does not explain. Exactly what is going on here? Since I have to go, I’m going to copy and paste my brief synopsis on the Biblical evidence for my view in my next post.
The Interpretation
Suppose mankind already existed before God created Adam. Suppose that man had already arrived on the Earth as a result of some natural process that God had set in motion, like evolution. For some reason, perhaps God decides to then engineer a special human being. God works under the restraint of making a man that is fully compatible to evolved man (“natural man” henceforth), and genetically engineers a person that has a lifespan of about 1000 years. The genetically engineered human has such a long life span because God has designed him to be resistant to heart disease, cancer, to age well, etc. Unlike natural man, Adam and Eve are genetically perfect. But why suppose this?
Cain
Biblical Support for this Interpretation
It would make sense out of Cain’s fear of being driven out – for there would already be plenty of people out there. It would explain how he could move far away from his family, and yet found a city. It would also help explain how his offspring could go into various industries, as if they had already existed (Genesis 4:17-22).
Noah
From Adam to Noah, with only a couple of anomalies, everyone listed lives 900+ years. What is especially significant is when the lifespans begin to gradually decline – the children of Noah. It was during the life of Noah that “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose” Gen. 6:2. It might be that the sons of God refers to Adam’s descendants (genetically engineered man), and that the daughters of men refer to natural man. This is noted in Noah’s generation, and notice that in the next generation, the lifespan of Noah’s children are less than the 900+ that had previously been the case. Perhaps Noah’s wife is from natural man, or mixed, explaining why Noah’s sons do not live as long.
Children of Noah
Shem, Noah’s son, only lived 600 years. The lifespans would gradually decline until all lifespans are similar to what we see today. Notice that in Gen. 10:32 even seems to suggest that these descendants became part of peoples that already existed. If you plot the lifespans of these people, it creates a mathematical curve – clearly something is going on here. The decrease in lifespan makes sense if you have the continued mingling of Adam’s genes with natural man. Over successive generations, the weaker genetics of natural man begin to dominate, slowly watering down the “pure” genes.
Early Marriage
This would also explain why it was so important to marry close kin early on, but after Adam’s genes were sufficiently diluted, close marriage was forbidden. Close marriages are only harmful due to genetic problems. If one had perfect genes, that would not be a problem.
Sarah
Consider the odd fact that Abraham is concerned that his wife, who was then around 90 years old, was so attractive that men might kill him to take her. This is very bizarre, no? Abraham lived to be 175. Sarah died at 127, but perhaps she had a similar concentration of Adamic genes as Abraham (they were closely related). Perhaps Sarah died prematurely for whatever reason, and had a life expectancy similar to her husband, around 200 years or so. If this is true, and if she aged well (like all those closely related to Adam), even at 90, she may have only appeared to be 30-40 at the time, thus explaining how she was still very attractive.
Jacob
One more point, and I think this is key. Consider when Jacob meets Pharaoh in Gen. 47:7-10. The Bible only records one thing that Pharaoh said to Jacob – he asks Jacob “How many years have you lived?” Reading between the lines, Jacob has probably told Pharaoh about his life, prompting Pharaoh to ask “Just how old are you?!” Look at Jacob’s response.
Jacob says he is 130 years old, which is pretty impressive, considering he wouldn’t die until he was 147. When Jacob says his years are “few,” he is using the humility that was customary at that time, indicating that he realized that 130 was a lot of years compared to other people. Jacob also realizes that, even though his lifespan is greater than that of normal people, it is nothing compared to the lifespans of his ancestors! In this passage, Jacob seems to be aware that he has a much longer lifespan than normal folks, and that his family’s lifespan is gradually getting shorter, but he doesn’t appear to understand why.
Normal Lifespans
After Jacob, you only see a couple more people that have special aging – like Moses and Caleb. But after that, you don’t see it again. At that point, presumably the genetics have become so diluted that there is no distinguishable difference between those who are descended from Adam and those who are not.
Why Isn’t the Bible Clearer?
If this hypothesis is correct, then why didn’t God simply say so in the Bible? Well, considering we didn’t even have a basic knowledge of evolution or genetics until relatively recently, it wouldn’t have made any sense to anyone until the present time anyway. So it would make sense of the fact that the Bible records some very odd things (the life spans) which are obviously noteworthy, but never tries to explain them. These things could be figured out thousands of years later when man came to understand how genetics works.
I admit, this hypothesis is very weird and very strange. But it also makes a lot of sense out of a number of things that otherwise are very, very hard to explain. Maybe I am completely wrong, but this is my current thinking on what is admittedly a very difficult and complex subject.