User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1777104-20100706033321

Fedelede, I answered your your "consideration" of what the Bible is to you in an earlier post, so I will hit your other declarations one at a time.


 * 6134 years is not enough to make so much differences towards the different races.
 * You display a knowledge of the Hebrew calendar, perhaps revealing a Jewish background. But be it 6134 or 6014 years, that is plenty of time for human variations to spread across the earth.    A few simple "laws" of genetics would show that such a distribution could be accomplished in as little as a thousand years, and probably in far less.  Consider but two things -


 * 1. Skin color is caused by two types of chemicals called melanin - red and "very dark brown." There are four to six genes that determine the amount and type of melanin operationg in skin coloration.  Do the math.


 * 2. The genes of both parents are recombined to alter the "instructions" based on a combination of the "instructions" in each of them. Two parents, each with a black and a white parent, have a fifty percent chance of producing a white child even though they are both "brown."


 * God couldn't have made Earth in seven days. . . Although I believe there's a God, I don't think he's all-powerful or all-seeing ...


 * You are, of course, creating in your mind a "god" after your own image. It is the height of arrogance for a mortal man to dictate the attributes or abilities of God.  And it didn't take God seven days, for he rested on the seventh day, having finished His work.  What you "think" about God is not really revelant to the discussion.


 * Jesus wasn't executed for being a Jew, but for being a criminal and a rebel. Romans didn't commit genocide, they were actually very tolerant people.


 * I did not say he was executed for being a Jew, but that his body was spared an ignoble burial through consideration that he was a Jew.


 * The creationist theory is full of flaws and impossible subjects...


 * To make this assertion, you must at least point out the flaws. And then, compare it to what you consider the true story.  The fact that it does not say what "science" claims is not a flaw.  Nor is the fact that a "day" passed with plants without the sun in the sky (since the days are assumed to be "regular" days).  Plants came before animals, and man is the last animal, the highest form of life known. And all these plants and animals, which are interdependent, came into existence within 48 hours of each other.  So where's the flaws?


 * "An entertaining story" -- I dealt with that having read your statement wrongly. I answered with the assumption that you were speaking of the whole Bible.  What is the "end" of the story and what is the "good lesson."  If you stop with Genesis 2:2 - God rested, considering all things good - that is a good lesson.  If you stop at the end of chapter 2, with the first "wedding," the story "ends" well.  But there is no break in the story, as chapter 3 explains what went wrong, being tied to the warning in chapter 2.  The "good lesson" of chapter 3 turns "ugly" fast!


 * I can even take it farther to say that I know most of the Bible was made so the clergy and the ruling portions got and kept the money and power.


 * Wow! And you know this how?  What evidence do you have?  The story of the old testament strictly forbid the "ruling portions" from being rich and powerful.  The new  testament puts strict controls on the "clergy" within that assembly of believers - requiring humility and service as common elements in all who would be called to lead the people.
 * A little survey of church history would indicate the fallacy of this assertion. The rise of "powerful" clergy is not encouraged anywhere in the text of the new (or old) testaments.  So how could the Bible "[be] made so [they] kept the money and power"?