The Biblical creation myth is not unique, even as some argue it handily explains the creation of matter, time and energy — so does Orphic mythology.
If you can't, then you have to concede that
your biblical creation myth is false, ok?
Since you're a scientist, you ought to be able to site the evidence that leads you to the conclusion that
the biblical creation myth has any credibility at all.
The believer may claim that but have no evidence of that —
the biblical creation myth is incorrect and it is the only thing offered as evidence.
Not exact matches
As has been pointed out to you countless times, science has shown that the
biblical myths of
creation and life are not true — they are simply stories invented to satisfy an ignorant populace.
Most
biblical stories were adoptions of earlier
myths and legends, such as the virgin birth,
creation and Noah's flood.
Some people don't like the notion of a universe forming from quantum foam, but, instead, would much rather imagine a god forming the universe, which is why we have thousands of
creation myths, including the two
biblical ones, the one written by the Priestly Source in Genesis 1 and the older
creation myth written by the Jahwist in Genesis 2, which borrow from older Sumerian mythology.
Some people don't like the notion of a universe forming from quantum foam, but, instead, would much rather imagine a god forming the universe, which is why we have thousands of
creation myths, including the two
biblical ones, the one written by the Priestly Source in Genesis 1 and the older
creation myth written by the Jahwist in Genesis 2,
myths which borrow from older Sumerian mythology.
(2) Evolution has often been taught with the implication that it was a rejection of the
biblical creation account, by ignoring or dismissing the
creation stories as prescientific
myths surpassed by superior modern versions.
Thirdly, if it did support the
biblical view of
creation, it would equally support ANY religious view of
creation that has the Universe popping into existence at a discrete point in time, including the richly diverse and inconsistent Hindu, Norse and Aboriginal Australian and Native American
creation myths.
The difference between the
Biblical and non-
Biblical conceptions of
myth is indeed implicitly recognized by HBK, for it quotes Alfred Jeremias's definition of Biblical myth: «Myth in the narrower sense... is one of the supreme creations of the human spi
myth is indeed implicitly recognized by HBK, for it quotes Alfred Jeremias's definition of
Biblical myth: «Myth in the narrower sense... is one of the supreme creations of the human spi
myth: «
Myth in the narrower sense... is one of the supreme creations of the human spi
Myth in the narrower sense... is one of the supreme
creations of the human spirit.
And if evolutionary theory can be accommodated by calling
creation accounts
myths, presumably other aspects of the
biblical world need to be corrected or altered in meaning when confronted by materials from more sources of knowledge than I wish to list.