Was the earth created in six literal days?

[Guest]

I don't accept the 6 24 hour days 6,000-10,000 years ago. It's not because I doubt the supernatural to do such a thing, rather I see contradictions in nature that shouldn't be if the world was created that way. For me the greatest hurdle is star-light. We know how far away stars are, and how fast light can travel, and for us to be able to see what we do requires millions and billions of years. Creationists often point out that God could have placed the light closer to us so we could see and use it. An interesting proposal, but light has certain properties that can change as it travels through space, I can touch on it next post but suffice to say it requires that the light we do see must have traveled the distance of millions and billions of light years. The only way around it that I know of is to propose a deceitful God, or throw out all scientific evidence; however I like evidence and I don't think God is deceitful.

Amen~!

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17

~

Some Believers Believe That The Sunlight And The Starlight Is Three (Earth Rotation) Days Older That Our Planet

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19

And Knowing The Heavens And Earth Will Instantaneously Burn Out

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. Revelation 20:11

They Know The Stars Will Never Be See Again

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 22:5

What Isn't Known

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only, Matthew 24:35-36

Is When That Last Thousand Year Count Down Will Start

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, Revelation 20:4-7

And Because Science Does Not Deal In Truth

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

Don't Even Try To Lean On It

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:5-9

To Trump God's Word

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 1 Corinthians 3:18-21

You See

[enoob57]

If God created the universe recently in six days I would expect the natural world that He created to reflect that, or at least not contradict it. Yet, for all the world every indication tells us that light from the Andromeda galaxy traveled that 2.5 million light years and did so over the time period of 2.5 million years. If the universe is 10,000 years old it makes it impossible for light to have traveled for 2.5 million years.

I think this demonstrates that either physical evidence is meant to be useless or God is being deceitful, unless we conclude that YEC is false.

The understanding of God's Holy Nature 'IS' His hatred of sin! The why 'IS' clearly seen in sin- it's destructive non-beneficial essence all the

way to the core of its entirety... so testified by our existence with it in this place! As the Lord has testified of Himself

Jn 14:6

6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

NKJV

This passage of spirit into a new cosmos and eternities of that way, truth, and life is the piece of the puzzel you cannot see!

D-9 God is going to destroy 100% this cosmos with fire... because of this hatred of sin and all that it has touched

Jude 20-25

Maintain Your Life with God

20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God,

looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction; 23 but others

save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

Glory to God

24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,

25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever.

Amen.

NKJV

The physical evidence is God 'IS' above the corporeal expanse and all things are subject to His Will and Purpose... You cannot

take the hated thing sin and it's garmet cosmos as God in subjection to it BUT rather it's witness of Him and His complete Holiness!

As you see the the principles of light and God's Word of Creation both are true and maintained by God and that which yields to God

in both are forced to wait upon Him in the obvious answer that eludes the mind now! Love, Steven

[His Ambassador]

This question along with the question about the age of the Earth keep popping up and causing great debate. My position is that it does not matter and is not worth arguing about. I suspect those who defend it do so because they don't want their belief system rattled. There is absolutely no Scripture that says we must believe the Earth was created in six literal days or the the Earth is only 6,000 years old in order to be saved. These questions are often used by atheists to skirt the real issue that they need to accept God's plan of salvation.

[gdemoss]

physical evidence is meant to be useless

This appears to be more inline with what God has said is the case.

Gary

This may be, although I do not recall that passage, but my experience and the knowledge that I do have strongly testifies that physical evidence is very useful and can give us a more accurate picture of the world we live in. For example it is physical evidence and physical understanding that allows us to build TVs, computers, bridges, airplanes, underlies modern medicine and so on. Physical evidence used to be taboo, i.e. you think you can find something that Aristotle couldn't see - hogwash, but when we as a species started taking physical evidence seriously in the form of science during the Renascence and Enlightenment I think the changes to our lifestyle since then speaks to the validity of using physical evidence.

In addition I think everyone - including creationists - utilizes physical evidence and assumes that physical evidence will give us the correct understanding of reality whether we are conscious of this or not in our daily lives. Even something as mundane as the harder you push something and the lighter something is the farther it will go, F=ma, is an example of utilizing physical evidence. So I do not see people, creationists or otherwise, seriously question the validity of physical evidence in their daily lives, and I think that is a serious blow to the proposal that physical evidence is meant to be useless. Perhaps it is circular, but physical evidence suggests that physical evidence is not useless IMHO.

To quote/paraphrase Galileo, I'm not inclined to accept that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.

Physical evidence is meant to be useless in determining exactly when creation took place is my position. Physical evidence is absolutely necessary to everyday life. I need the door handle to really be there when I attempt to open it. I need to be able to understand the world around me to have a frame of reference for what I am doing. There is a big difference.

Gary

[Guest]

.... but my experience and the knowledge that I do have strongly testifies that physical evidence is very useful and can give us a more accurate picture of the world we live in. For example it is physical evidence and physical understanding that allows us to build TVs, computers, bridges, airplanes, underlies modern medicine and so on. Physical evidence used to be taboo, i.e. you think you can find something that Aristotle couldn't see - hogwash, but when we as a species started taking physical evidence seriously in the form of science during the Renascence and Enlightenment I think the changes to our lifestyle since then speaks to the validity of using physical evidence.

Seriously We Have More Than Enough Evidence

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Romans 3:10-12

In The Degradation Of The Species

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Romans 3:13-15

To Measure The Veracity

Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:16-18

Of The Bible

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

~

In addition I think everyone - including creationists - utilizes physical evidence and assumes that physical evidence will give us the correct understanding of reality whether we are conscious of this or not in our daily lives. Even something as mundane as the harder you push something and the lighter something is the farther it will go, F = ma, is an example of utilizing physical evidence. So I do not see people, creationists or otherwise, seriously question the validity of physical evidence in their daily lives, and I think that is a serious blow to the proposal that physical evidence is meant to be useless. Perhaps it is circular, but physical evidence suggests that physical evidence is not useless IMHO.

To quote/paraphrase Galileo, I'm not inclined to accept that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.

Well Brother Galileo Was Right On, You See He Knew Reality Was Far Bigger Than Just The Physical

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.” ― Galileo Galilei

http://www.goodreads...Galileo_Galilei

And Yes, Creationists Do Utilize The Physical Evidence

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

“What ever the course of our lives, we should receive them as the highest gift from the hand of God, in which equally reposed the power to do nothing whatever for us. Indeed, we should accept misfortune not only in thanks, but in infinite gratitude to Providence, which by such means detaches us from an excessive love for Earthly things and elevates our minds to the celestial and divine.” ― Galileo Galilei

http://www.goodreads...Galileo_Galilei

As Testified To By Many Eye Witnesses

And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Acts 4:33

And Our Changed Hearts

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:8

Of Thanksgiving

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. Colossians 3:16

~

I agree that science is limited in scope and anyone who has studied the philosophy of science knows that science never claims "Truth". With that said, it is not the aim of science to open the door to infinite wisdom, rather it is to set a limit to infinite error.

Science (Knowledge) Can Muster No Defense Against A Fool's Stony Heart

The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful. The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good. He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil. Psalms 36:1-4

Except Perhaps The Revelation Of God's Grace

Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. Isaiah 6:5-8

To A Humble And Contrite Heart

Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. Isaiah 66:1-2

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[enoob57]

It is my understanding of Christian theology that it is the Devil/Satan that is the father of lies and relies on deception, and such is a key component of sin not Godliness. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I assume that God created the universe and did so without deception. So when all reason and evidence suggests that the universe is billions of years old the universe is billions of years old; not really a few thousand with the appearance of billions and billions.

I agree that God is above the corporeal, but I don't think that means we should expect to see contradictions between physical evidence the natural world has to offer and reality.

I understand what you are saying D-9 and it might help to see the components a little better:

Lies came through satan for God had made him perfect in all His Ways!

Eze 28:14-15

14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God;

You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you

were created, till iniquity was found in you

NKJV

Jn 8:44

44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from

the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he

speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

NKJV

Perhaps I am ignorant, but I assume that God created the universe and did so without deception

By the Word of God above you do not have to assume but know that God is not the initiator of deception as that

is with satan and his followers... but as God 'IS' able to bring all things into His purpose as seen-

1 Ki 22:21-23

21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, 'I will persuade him.' 22 The Lord said to him,

'In what way?' So he said, 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And the Lord said,

'You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.' 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit

in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you."

NKJV

This spirit is not named but is as his father the devil/or is the devil as seen in Job

Job 1:6-11

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came

among them. 7 And the Lord said to Satan, "From where do you come?"

So Satan answered the Lord and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it."

8 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a

blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?"9 So Satan answered the Lord and said, "Does

Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that

he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.

11 But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!"

NKJV

Now the wisdom here is God had already told satan the heart of Job was blameless! However satan focus on

his accomplishments of the created(himself) with the created(man) saw a total different scenario! Thus choosing

to believe the created element rather than the Creator! We know the outcome was as God said by the response

of Job

Job 13:13-15

13 "Hold your peace with me, and let me speak,

Then let come on me what may!

14 Why do I take my flesh in my teeth,

And put my life in my hands?

15 Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.

Even so, I will defend my own ways before Him.

NKJV

As we see here Job rested in God >BUT< also his (Job) ways vs:15 and the lesson Job had yet to learn when God

finally spoke to Him- Job possessions as being toward His Lord were not his but what God had given Job by the very

created fact of ourselves! God teaches us we are merely vessels to be filled with the things of His Pleasure

Ro 9:22-24

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels

of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy,

which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

NKJV

Now connecting The Wisdom of God in all this to the answer you have asked:

We know that God has brought all things into being as He 'IS' the uncaused of

eternity... and understanding what seems to be opposition to His Being is in fact

without truth and will be revealed in God's Good Timing... your position is one of

outside observing God for error thus proving God is not by use of yourself the created

by the observation of the created thing science and corporeal assessments ... all on

a flotilla of assumptions based on present sight of learned facts and the morality

of God on how He performs as you think he should brings you to what exactly???

The created angel satan with conjunctive efforts of man to find some other way

around that God 'IS' is the foolishness of being something other than what you

really are a vessel to be filled the things of God or the things of satan... When light

is brought into the darkness the darkness disappears for in the light of truth there

are no lies and what God has said 'IS' the truth of eternity and all that doubt this

shall be brought before Him as the power of lies are removed and the natural

response will be seen in this way-

Php 2:10-11

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those

on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that

Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

NKJV

Love, Steven

[gdemoss]

Yes, the heavens and the earth were created in six literal days. That is what God clearly said, more than once, and I believe him. People can argue science this and science that till they are blue in the face but it doesn't change what God said.

Gary

Hi Gary, I agree with you that scripture makes this statement and I have no reason to doubt that the information is an accurate representation of oral traditions that existed in 600 BC, or whenever the words were penned. Your claim, however, that you care not what the objections of science might be, that you are going to believe scripture anyhow, makes a nice counter point in the thread: Question for Atheists. There we are currently discussing whether atheists can simply choose to believe in God. You think they can, but in this instance it would require that they also reject what they know to be true in science. That may be a stumbling block that is simply too big a chasm to cross. If, on the other hand you were promoting Francis Collins' understanding of God you might have a better chance of bringing some atheists on-board.

The problem with your statement above is the word know which you placed in italics yourself as you believe you know certain things to be true and even believe you have enough evidence to support that which you believe to be true but that doesn't make it true. The same logic must be applied to that which I present unto you. Either way it is an act of faith and atheists must deny that their whole system of understanding is based upon faith that they have the right starting point or foundational blocks to build that which they reason to be true. Any of the foundation be wrong and the whole building collapses. Where do you begin your foundation of understanding and how do you know that you are starting in the right place and therefore coming to a true conclusion? Can you honestly answer that question or will you need to avoid it? Where do you place your 'faith'?

Gary

[gdemoss]

Yes, the heavens and the earth were created in six literal days. That is what God clearly said, more than once, and I believe him. People can argue science this and science that till they are blue in the face but it doesn't change what God said.

Gary

Hi Gary, I agree with you that scripture makes this statement and I have no reason to doubt that the information is an accurate representation of oral traditions that existed in 600 BC, or whenever the words were penned. Your claim, however, that you care not what the objections of science might be, that you are going to believe scripture anyhow, makes a nice counter point in the thread: Question for Atheists. There we are currently discussing whether atheists can simply choose to believe in God. You think they can, but in this instance it would require that they also reject what they know to be true in science. That may be a stumbling block that is simply too big a chasm to cross. If, on the other hand you were promoting Francis Collins' understanding of God you might have a better chance of bringing some atheists on-board.

The problem with your statement above is the word know which you placed in italics yourself as you believe you know certain things to be true...

I placed 'know' in italics because I knew you would contest it, but as I didn't really clarify it could be taken either way.

... you believe you know certain things to be true and even believe you have enough evidence to support that which you believe to be true but that doesn't make it true.

Depends what things you are meaning. Certainly there are certain things I hold to be true: the antiquity of the universe, planets and stars forming by natural means, evolution, and so; but as to particulars I don't necessarily claim certainty. I might even claim I simply do not no.

The same logic must be applied to that which I present unto you. Either way it is an act of faith and atheists must deny that their whole system of understanding is based upon faith that they have the right starting point or foundational blocks to build that which they reason to be true.

I think the main difference between us is that your views are immutable and mine evolve. Would that be fair? Whereas you hold certain religious tenants, perhaps all of them, to be fixed and unchanging, my scientific position is under constant review and changes as new information comes along. You would never say, for example, that you hold Jesus to be God today, but will adapt that view tomorrow as new information comes available. Earlier you wrote: "People can argue science this and science that till they are blue in the face but it doesn't change what God said." In other words, no amount of evidence could ever persuade you to question your interpretation of scripture. Thus, I perceive faith acting as a bulwark against change. Religious views are by way of faith considered inerrant. Scientific hypothesises, on the other hand, are constantly subject to testing and correction, or abandonment. They are never considered inerrant and they are not bound by faith to be sacred. Faith does not teach the faithful to question their beliefs, but to hold tight to them. Science, in contrast, teaches skepticism. It seems the exact opposite of faith.

Any of the foundation be wrong and the whole building collapses.

Well, if the Out of Africa hypotesis is proved wrong, only that hypothesis collapses. It would then be replaced by whatever new hypothesis caused its demise. In evolution, for example, many lines of investigation are on-going at any one time. The theory itself is very well established. Not sure what crack in the foundation you had in mind.

Where do you begin your foundation of understanding and how do you know that you are starting in the right place and therefore coming to a true conclusion? Can you honestly answer that question or will you need to avoid it?

I suppose I begin with Copernicus and build from there. You don't want me to go through the evidence for a heliocentric solar system, surely. I don't start with the present Big Bang theory because I am not convinced that it is firmly established in all its details. I don't start with the origin of life because biologists have not established how that came about. So I shall start with Copernicus. Does that answer the question? If not please restate based upon my response and I will try to answer honestly.

Where do you place your 'faith'?

I guess I would have to say I place my faith in the scientific method and its ability to render the universe knowable. I am hesitant, though, for reasons stated above, to call that faith.

Copernicus as a foundation for truth. You place your faith in mans ability to reason that which is around him based upon his five senses and intellect then, no? I know you don't like the word 'faith' and prefer 'know' because you believe that you actually know what you say to be true to be true but then you on the other hand admit that science can be wrong and is sometimes proved to be so. So actually in essence, your faith is weak as your not really sure of what you think you know because you leave room for error as things have been proven false which were formerly thought to be true. It is still faith but I can see why you would be hesitant to call it that.

On my side of the fence, I need to correct something of your perception of religious faith. Things do change in my faith outside of certain absolutes. Some of the foundation of my faith is that God exists and he is the God of the bible. These two are unchanging. What changes is my understanding of who God is based upon what God has said about himself in his written word. I can, and have in the past, find out that I have been absolutely in error about what I perceived to be the truth about what he has said. God does not change but my understanding of him does as I am the one who is lacking in information. My faith grows as time passes and my understanding of God and his ways stands the test of time and study.

You and I both have faith, we just approach it differently. While we both have our foundation resting in our ability to interpret the evidence we are presented with, my faith rests in God and his ability and desire to communicate truth unto me, whereas your faith is in man and his ability to explain the world around you too you and your ability to comprehend that which has been explained. Good luck with that.

Gary

[gdemoss]

Celsius,

Trust in God - unconditional

Trust in science - conditional

I understand the logic used to arrive at the conclusion but find fault in it. The difference is in the changeableness of the object of our faith. Faith in a light switch is not the same as faith in gravity. The rate of failure of each is extremely different. The rate of failure ought not be taken into consideration of whether something should be called faith or not, but the faithfulness of the object to preform as intended. Atheists just don't like the word faith to be associated with what they believe but as I have said previously, you believe in your own ability to reason that is limited by your finite being and understanding though you understand just how unreliable it is to do so.

I don't have any problem with science in and of itself. Only when they being having difficulty interpreting what they see by applying reasoning without complete knowledge ending in false conclusions that later make themselves known when more information is revealed. I don't know a whole lot about scientific method nor do I have much interest in it. Many great men of faith are scientists.

Gary

[Guest]

Imagine the two scenarios:

1) tomorrow we wake up in a world in which none of the scientific knowledge ever took place

2) tomorrow we wake up in a world in which none of the theological knowledge ever took place

Which one would you choose?

I think we would notice a huge difference after a few seconds in case of 1).

1) Case One Is Mote, For Yesterday's Science (Knowledge) Is Today's Laugh And Tomorrow's Shame

Engineering And Agriculture Usually Are Void Of Such Pagan Incantations As Found In The Evolutionary Tale

And Thus Still Remain A Useful Discipline For Everyday Folk With Everyday Needs

2) Case Two Is Forever True For God IS The Same Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow

And As For That Big Difference Today's So Called Science (Knowledge) Makes

IMO The Evolutionary Mythos Has No Effect On Peoples

Except To Suck The Oxygen Out Of The Spiritual Lives Of Children, Peoples And Governments

And A Lame Vain Attempt To Snuff Out The Light Of Christ The Creator With Mankind's Childish Fables - Dinosaur Train Anyone, lol