The Genesis account of creation is not mythical

Con cites no source in which a myth equates with falsehood. While i cited sources from mythologists who indicate that myth doesn't necessarily imply falsehood. Con falsely accuses me of the sharpshooter fallacy. I never said that absolutely everything in Genesis is proven, but that generally, it is. Con has been using strawman arguments (1). Con assumes that the biblical authors were creationists when we just saw that is completely false. In order for Genesis to be scientifically inaccurate, con would need to ensure with textual evidence that the biblical authors did mean for it to be in that order. "When the cursory reading of the text yields tremendously contradicting statements of fact, and that only specific, rare interpretations can form a semblance of reconciliation, it is quite apparent that Pro is no longer affirming that "Genesis is not mythical", and rather only affirming the much weaker "Genesis is possibly not mythical"" I presented evidence for each interpretation, therefore it is not simply a possibility. Which one is correct? We're not sure, but pick any interpretation and you'll see that you cannot disprove it. Con doesn't seem to acknowledge the scholarly sources i gave. "I am demonstrating that God did not play any part in what the creation narrative attempts to explain." Con presents no logical argument that this is true, but asks a question under the assumption that God didn't create anything. Genesis does have poetry in the account (2). According to wikipedia, myths can be truthful, thus disproving Con's claim that it's a falsehood. "Appeals to nature are generally used in food/drug products or on moral issues" Con doesn't realize that his argument that there is "compelling evidence" can also be interpreted to be "good." as I stated, in order for Con's attacks on the Bible to be justified, Con would have to present evidence that the text holds a certain interpretation and that it conflicts with science. I'll give an overview of the things Con failed to address: 1. Myths - no correlation can be found between Genesis and other myths that would classify Genesis as a false hood or an exaggeration in round 2 2. Day - "The universe was essentially not created in a literal week according to the ancient Hebrews as time was measured by the completion of events, not measuring time length (1). The Semitic phrase "evening and morning" is also referring to an indefinite period of time (2). In Hebrew, there are two types of numbers: Ordinal (Day 1, day 2, etc.) and Cardinal (1 of something, 2 of something, etc.). In the Hebrew of Genesis, it uses ordinal numbers of days, not length periods of time (3)." 3. "Genesis is theoretically an account of what God said he did in the creation and would eventually then be revealed to Moses" (God may have simplified very complex details when telling it to man) 4. "There is reason to believe that Genesis is not a book describing the entire history of the human race (while it's implied God made everything), but rather that he wanted to focus on a specific type of people." 5. "The vegetation and environment described in Gen. 2 describes an agricultural setting" 6. "The genealogies of Genesis have been observed to have gaps. Genealogies in the Bible consist of: legal (claims of hereditary office), familial (birthrights), and religious (The priesthood) (5). The Bible makes highlights of the most important people in a line. Matthew's introductory legal genealogy of Jesus' heir to the Israelite throne" 7. "Scientifically, we descend from a most recent common ancestor known as the genetic Adam and Eve (7). It is then probable that God simply wanted to communicate that we as rational and civilized humans (not "underdeveloped" animals) are all related" 8. "Con argues that the Moon would destroy the life of earth according to the Bible, however scientifically, the "giant impact hypothesis" happened at the early stages of molten Earth where life had yet to evolve (13)." 9. No evidence Hebrews copied from Babylonians or other myths Because Con failed to address these points, unless Con can find evidence to counter these claims, Con will fail to meet the burden of proof. Sources: 1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 2. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org....