"What if . . . ?"

There are two kinds of assertions, and they are either presumptions, or assumptions.

If you (the reader of what you are now reading), and yours truly (the writer of what you are now reading), want to seriously think, be sufficiently frank and forthright, and respectably honest enough, we can and should both concur that the environmental phenomena around us exists - both pertaining to physical objects and to forces of nature we have detected and yet detect with our sight, hearing, smell, and touch senses.

Such admission by the two of us is fortunate, because if either or both of us doubt, dispute, or disagree with the above premises, neither one or both of us would be worth talking to, but instead reprehensible and even dangerous weirdos worth having law enforcement officers and their assistants take charge concerning (and not regarding) us.

Note that I used the questionable word: "us".

I -- and you also -- must be careful to NOT speak for each other unless justified in doing so, and so also the word: "we" has to be used only when applicable and appropriate!

In other words, what is real is therefore (logically) NOT an illusion. And even if we assessed some phenomena around us to be illusions, it would behoove both of us to wisely discern which from what, and both act and behave accordingly.

Take, for example, the existence of both red and green stoplights at intersections - both of which environmental phenomena are directly related to the environmental phenomena of potentially-red-and-blue-strobelight-flashing squad cars perhaps in the near vicinity more than eager to relate to how you and/or I react to the two different-colored stoplights.

Now, either or both of us might presume that red and green stoplights are illusions, and/or that green means stop and red means go, but there is a realistic extremely-high-probability chance that those police officers previously alluded to might think otherwise.

In their case, they - quite ready and able to arrest and ticket violators who wrongly (?) react to the different-colored stoplights (in their "opinion") - assume that the lights are indeed reality and not illusion (and literally mean EXACTLY what they are supposed to mean regardless of "interpretive differences" or "contextual disagreements" - be they "constitutional" or not issues of either "freedom of [nefarious] speech" or "freedom of [coexisting] religion" or "reproductive choice" purportedly integrated with "women's health."

Because of that, we are fearful to contradict their take on it, and adjust our driving behavior with accommodation to their assessment.

Having established all that so far, that things around us DO exist and are not instead a lying illusion, and that we adjust our actions and behavior accordingly in the assumption that such is fact instead of myth, fairy tale, legend, tale, rumor, or heresay, we perhaps then continue into metaphysical speculations about the origin of all around us which does exist.

It is a noteworthy characteristic of the sane (contrasted with crazy or lunatic) to assume that real and non-illusional phenomena of nature around us (including those phenomena of nature humanity has manipulated for the construction and maintenance of buildings, walls, floors, ceilings, heaters, air conditioners, carpets, glass windows, light bulbs or equivalent, etc.) did not create themselves by themselves, particularly non-lifeform objects and forces (many of which - like the Creator(s)? thereof - are invisible to the non-aided human eye, such as wind, gravity, infrared and ultraviolet and microwave and X-ray radiation).

Even regarding lifeforms which reproduce, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the starters or first ones in existence did not create themselves by themselves.

Show me a paper dictionary that assembles itself out of forestwood, or a car with all its parts assembling itself (preferably off the assembly line) out of iron ore rocks buried underground, and I will consider giving you a popsicle. But only one. Per day. For a week. Or a month. Maybe.

Again, at this point, we have to repeat what was stated before, and more.

Such admission by the two of us about non-virtual reality is fortunate, because if either or both of us doubt, dispute, or disagree with the above premises, neither one or both of us would be worth talking to, but instead pathetic and even dangerous weirdos worth having law enforcement officers and their assistants take charge concerning (and not regarding) us.

The Origin of all things, at least in their initial manifestation, must - of necessity - be related to some Superior Force, or Thing, or Group of Things, or Lifeform (rather than person-less Inanimate Object, shall we assume?) . . . or - as one fascinating and intriguing Phenomenon of Reality (i.e. Holy Writ) puts it in variously-translated alphabet characters within its printed pages: God.

Please do not be shocked, dismayed, or even mildly taken back by this author mentioning the "religious" word: "God" associated with the concept of Creator.

You, the reader, are both strongly admonished and urgently implored to not now go off on some senseless rampage or hatefully-vicious binge or vendetta or crusade with a wildly-capricious conglomeration of slander and ridicule. Such does no good in continuing open-minded and non-fettered communication as to thinking about the origin of phenomena around us, and certainly does not negate the existence of the word: "God" within that environmental phenomenon known as: "The Bible" - nor does one's mindless and myopic disdain or scurrilous potty-mouthing negate anything in The Bible itself.

Dealer's Choice is choosing to not consider contents of the inferior-content Qur'an, Book of Mormon, Apocrypha, and a plethora of lesser litteration.

What (or better yet, Who) "God" is, relating to the thought and concept of 'Creator,' is comprehensively-enough and sufficiently elaborated upon within The HOLY Bible - a Bible penned by humanity themselves, comprised of beyond-mere-conjecture illumination and enlightenment and information which mere human mortals are not capable of concocting by themselves without Divine inspiration.

Don't get me wrong. Lying and dishonest fairy tales, legends, myths, allegories and metaphors, symbolism, and such can be facetiously made up by those who for some cause not only crave causing doubt and disbelief but relish and "get their kicks" and "jollies" imposing not simply silly and stupid, but downright dangerous and even lethal, misinformation.

What is contained within the contents of The Bible - in stark and refreshing and thankful contrast - is not simply the best description of environmental reality which currently exists, but gives humans an awareness, recognition, and fantastic overview of beyond-mere-physical "spiritual" phenomena not limited by the five human senses (and in addition, according to Biblical Scriptures, overriding mere physical phenomena and the limited parameters of such).

All the malicious doubt and denial in the entire world by impious revilers - by all those so given in to besieging and persecuting those of an entirely different mindset - has not and does not and will not negate the existent reality of either The Bible or the contents therein . . . though hollow and ineffectual sordid claims to the contrary have been, are, and will be made.

To quote from "the Forbidden Book" (i.e. part of the Sacred-66-books, Judeo/Christian, Old-and-New-Testament, Holy Bible) [ and "Excuse Me, for so doing" ]:

First Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart."
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the "foolishness" of what we preach to save those who believe.
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than humans, and the weakness of God is stronger than humans.
26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth;
27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,
28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
31 therefore, as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord."

First Corinthians 2:1 When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom.
2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling;
4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.
7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,"
10 God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11 For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
14 The non-spiritual [man] does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to [him], and [he] is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
15 The spiritual [man] judges all things, but is [himself] to be judged by no one.
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Part of that "mature" mentioned in verse 6 above relates to a healthy aversion against women in government, even though there was the silly-fluke case of Big Judge Deborah and Wimpy Barak in the Old Testament, and the vague meaning of the word "chief" in the New Testament:

Acts 17:4 And some of them believed and joined themselves to Paul and Silas, both a great group of the worshiping Greeks, and not a few of the "chief" (whatever that means) women.

But the majority jist of Scripture strongly indicates that women are not "chief" among adult males, and should not be called "sir" if in uniform (as, for example, an all-women-only Navy WAVE or Army WAC):

Ecclesiastes 7:28 ...One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found.

Isaiah 3:12 My people: children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. Oh my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths.

Nahum 3:12 All your fortresses are like fig trees with first-ripe figs--if shaken they fall into the mouth of the eater.
Nahum 3:13 Hey, your troops are women within you. The gates of your land are wide open to your foes; fire has devoured your barricades.

First Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with propriety.

Relating to 'Adam and Eve' in verses 13 and 14 above, the mixed-gender couple was called man and wife right from the start in Genesis and thus legitimately and "legally" married without State-issued marriage-license certification (as it was in the United States during the 1700s and 1800s) by an IRS-501(c)(3)-non-profit-"officialized" reverend ordained from an IRS-501(c)(3)-non-profit-"officialized" seminary with all the heavy-handed IRS-mischief "equal-rights"-for-women-feminists-and-homopervert-sexual-orientation baggage associated with that.

Obviously outside the limited scope of "in and for church" only, Adam and Eve were not merely the first familial unity, but also the first government unit - proven by the fact that they themselves contrived sin-instigated skimpy clothes by their own restriction (Gen. 3:7), soon enhanced by God's choice of long-hair-bound/long-sleeved-and-long-robed/moccasins-wearing wardrobe for them (Gen. 3:21) -- mandatory (for the sake of decency devoid of becoming and being public nuisances exhibiting disorderly conduct ... see First Timothy 2:8-9) because other reproduced husband/wife governmental units came on the scene who also were required to be clothed in general public view for the sake of sane-survival general public modesty. Such is not only commonly characteristic of civilized indigenous human tribes, but also respectable neighborhood city councils, county and state assemblies, state and federal house and senate, and so forth.

So here we come to the "what if . . ."

Being that it has been said in Scripture that Satan used such: "what if . . ." contrariness in the Garden of Eden against The Original Mother of Us All (i.e. Great-Gramma+ Eve), let's use it positively for good.

What if the Earth is not "four billion years old?"

Have I now committed The Unpardonable Mortal Sin by that simple non-religious suggestion?

Where and How did fake "scientists" anti-scientifically and non-scientifically come up with that millions/billions-years-old fiction?

How come the tall mountains have not been worn away to global flatness by gradual-but-supposedly-long-term erosion during that immense time period?

Are quack "scholars" erroneously basing the "four billion years" on presumptions about radioactive dating of isotopes, miscalculating how much of the original or parent material there was to start with, while ignoring and not taking into consideration addition of identical isotopes mixing in during Noah's Worldwide Catastrophic Flood?

Why are sea-creature fossils found at the tops of the mountains? Can stalactites and stalagmites form by calcification in a VERY short time, as have diamonds from compressed carbon in an equally short time?

Could not probably-constant-speed enroute starlight from "millions-of-light-years-distant" stars and galaxies and nebulas which have been and yet are visible to human observers on Earth during the several thousand years of human history have been created along with the stars and galaxies and nebulas such supposedly are related to?

What if hallucinating pseudo-"scientists" and biased/bigoted-against-Genesis deceivers concocted that "4-billion" figure out of the blue -- using erroneous-source starting-point-and-time presumptions, exacerbating the falsity with presumptive never-never-land processes which never happened?

What if "God" (the Creator) DID create everything as historically recorded in Genesis?

The atheist and agnostic retort: "We simply do not know."

WHY should they be content with "not knowing," when there is at least ONE answer (what is contained within The Bible)?

Are they that way with other things in their lives? Do they want to know and find out if McDonald's still exists and is open for business when they are hungry? Do they not want to discover if their car will start to get them to McDonald's when they turn the ignition key? Do they not want to see if their BIOS passcode will get them into their computer after they have inserted fast food and drink into the big holes under their noses and gorged their arrogant bellies at McDonalds, or Arby's, Wendy's, Hardees, KFC, or Burger King?

Do they take pseudo-sophisticated pride in bragging to everyone that they "do not know?"

Or are they being hypocritical dastardly liars, claiming that they have no answer, when they damn well already know even the intricate details of Scripture's Genesis chapter one . . . but for some vile and filthy God-forsaken irrationalization have refused to accept that answer?

To (surprise surprise!) quote from the Bible once more ["Oh NO! Here he goes again!"]:

Second Corinthians 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15 So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
16 I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little.
17 (What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a "fool," in this boastful confidence; [ and - shazam! - this "foolish" "non-authoritative" blurbing which follows is going to make it into canonical Scripture by Holy-Spirit enforcement ]
18 since many boast of worldly things, I too will boast.)
19 For you gladly bear with fools, being "wise" yourselves! [ and are you smart enough to sense my biting sarcasm? ]
20 For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face.
21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! [ and are you smart enough to sense my biting sarcasm? ] But whatever any one dares to boast of - I am speaking as a "fool" - I also dare to boast of that.
22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. [ and it gets even better, as I really hit you with a lot more! ]

Are they suspicious or jealous against Christian believers who suggest to such prideful no-nothings that what is contained in Genesis of The Bible at least could be true and factual and valid?

Do close-minded atheists and agnostics (having no ready-for-actual-observation and honestly-documented proof of real-time evolution or even fossil-record evolution) dogmatically (thus hypocritically) despise those allegedly-"dogmatic" Christian creationists who in fact perfectly tie in the exact semantics of The Bible for what is in fact actually found in nature and their environment around them?

It is vital for lying doubters and scurrilous slanderers to not put words into the mouths of creationists which creationists never actually said, but merely indicated might be a possibility (even though a supposedly absurd one).

I remember one spiteful anti-creationist/anti-Bible doubter, trembling at times with somewhat-controlled demonically-sassy antagonism, say to me that I believed that pink elephants would come out of his rectum (although the term he used for his rectum was expletively defamatory). But in truth, I never actually said those words, rather that it is possible that pink elephants could or might be emitted out of the lamentable guy's fecal orifice. So there was a total disconnect as to what he said I said, with what I actually said. To follow up, I would gather that the elephants would have to be compressed and then expand upon emission, else the pain would probably be completely unbearable, with a quick and merciful death promptly petitioned for.

Perhaps if he ever met me again, he would blurt out: "You are so ruefully closed-minded." And my response might be: "If I was so closed-minded, I would not even be talking to you."

Speaking of pain, I assume (and not presume) that the reason an atheist or agnostic or some similarly disbelieving loonytoon does not presume that red and green stoplights are a deceptive illusion, is their fear of intense pain they could quite possibly inflict themselves with by being broadsided on the driver's side by some innocent victim violently but innocently connecting with them at some intersection, possibly with the police viewing the entire collision incident and ready to administer copious and irrevocable blame for (or "against" - depending upon your point of view) the disbelieving atheist or agnostic clearly at fault in that situation.

Ephesians 5:14 Therefore it is said, "Awake, Oh sleeper, and rise up from the dead, and Christ shall give you light."

In conclusion, it is sensible and admirable to assume that some answer presently available pertaining to origins (i.e. The Bible) is the ONLY viable answer (so far) instead of presuming either that there is: (1) no answer, or (2) that the Bible answers are wrong, a lie, invalid, deceptive, and erroneous (without having any reasonable grounds whatsoever for disregarding, castigating, and/or debasing them).

It is disgraceful to dislike the profession of having "faith" -- not false "faith" in the heretical and apostate myth of evolution, but rather in the marvelously-informative contents of The Bible.

Though scoffers will not admit it, they exercise non-catatonic faith in the perfectly-predictable phenomena (of the Creator who they rebelliously shun and blaspheme) as (for instance) they non-catatonically trust (yes: trust) that the floor on which they are now standing or sitting will not suddenly collapse under them, and the roof won't non-expectantly cave in on top of them, and that God's meteor from outer space will refrain from coming down and crashing on their thick skulls and air-brained contents therein without being formally invited whether by so-called "spam" public-service-announcement e-mails from devout and concerned Christian missionaries or The Spirit directly, morse-code telegraphs from whoever, or whatever.

They non-admittedly (and, again: non-catatonically, without being self-immobilized with terror-griped paralysis) trust a non-sadistic God's constant correctly-proportioned atmosphere so that they are not excruciatingly suffocating, gravity so they are not flung upward off the Earth and consequently consigned to writhing in anguish with the air-pressure-missing torture of suddenly boiling blood.

They trust friction on the roads they drive, gasoline to stay liquid until vaporized, rubber in tires to not quickly disintegrate, and God's Sun to not explode all of a sudden and incinerate them, yet they hypocritically brag that they neither believe in the Creator who sustains their very lives in remarkable pleasantness while He understandably and occasionally punishes them and Job-like collateral damage for and in their wayward asinine ignorance, with His hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, poisonous gases and spiders and snakes and irritating mosquitos which they should have - by now - learned to predict and control or avoid instead of fooling around bothering and harassing His saints who take pleasure in admitting that they at least trust and love Him and His.

It is common sense to go with something (such as the Bible's answers to origins) that is -- instead of bellering out goofy presuppositions and ridiculous theories that are not . . . which Scripture-concordant philosophy is very valuable in assuming that a drifting life raft still near enough for someone to jump into off the melting iceberg is "the thing to do" rather than refusing to admit the existence of the life raft or criticizing and condemning it for not being a preferred color, size, material, origin of manufactured production or brand, country of origin, known identity of purchase provider, or nitpickiness-calculated placement in the water.

Why don't articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post and The Boston Globe state EXACTLY the precise same words about the very same news item, and so why do scoffers criticize somewhat-different highlights written within the four gospels of the New Testament? And keep in mind that four thousand men could be part of five thousand men, and the Lord can use The Devil to do the Lord's will without the Lord being reprimandable -- even though the Lord "gets the credit" who ultimately controls it all.

The atheist and agnostic evolutionist must ["must?"] read precisely and only what the given words of The Bible really are -- rather than prejudicially and pompously defame what they mistakenly presume misrepresentatives have said it to have said ... gullibly depending upon pseudo-know-it-alls with or without academic credentials and post-graduate degrees in pseudo-"scholarly" brainwashed superstition and laughably-fraudulent "education" -- and then carefully scrutinize and analyze if it adequately-enough correctly relates to genuine and authentic reality and the bonafide reality of natural phenomena around us and what we are somewhat certain has happened in the past.

The only alternative concerning them is for them to pathetically and despicably wallow and flounder in the misty-fog abyss of depraved egocentric uncertainty and doubt accentuated into mean-spirited tirades of ranting blatter - causing misery both on themselves and against others.

Second Thessalonians 3:2 ...and that we may be delivered [away] from wicked and evil humans; for not all have faith.