I *have* always thought that the Genesis myth is at least presentable as a childishly reduced version of the real story

The order is not in line with our current understanding. ex/ Grass, plants, and fruiting trees did not exist prior to the sun, moon, and stars. It seems no more or less tied to actual events than the Hawaiian mythology or most others.

I *have* always thought that the Genesis myth is at least presentable as a childishly reduced version of the real story, as opposed to those myths where a deity masturbates or performs some other sexual act that produces the cosmos. The Hebrews appear to've been downright prudish by comparison.

A Great Being tale is much more awe-inspiring, I think, than scientific happenstance.

Ya think?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There is just no logical process for primitive man to create bread.

You can't be serious. Bread (essentially) is flower and liquid that's heated. It borders on the insane to think it wouldn't have been created accidentally millions of times over. I'm afraid it's your logic that's faulty. I mean, since we invented the laser, bread seems pretty low tech.

If creation is a myth, who or what started the big bang?

Doesn't work, you can ask the same question about whoever or whatever started the big bang ... ie what started the starter. You get an infinite regression of "what started whatever came before". You can try to get around it by defining a prime starter, but its not convincing ... you can also define an even prime number greater than two, but that doesn't mean there's a number which meets the definition.

There are reasons to believe in God, but that isn't one of them.

How to explain the many people who believe the creation myth today? That's a separate question!

It's fairly simple...As I said about a year ago, in response to, I think one of Verdon's posts, I fail to see much in the way of contradiction between the two ideas. It comes down to a matter of exclusionary (or perhaps reductive) logic. To wit:

God making a Universe WOULD make a big bang, wouldn't it?

and...

Creationists say 6 days. Evolutionists say 6 million years at a minimum. Who's right? They both are. Think about it God is held to be a timeless being, to whom "a day is as a thousand years". Wat is the working definition of a 'day' to such a being?

Has man... and most everything else... evolved and change since their creation? Without question. But that still doesn't enter into the issue of their creation itself, and doesn't negate the concept of a higher being than ourselves being at least part of that happening. Thereby, there's still no real conflict, here.

At the end of "The Origin of Species," Darwin says of evolution that there is "grandeur in this view of life." I believe that too, and that that view is more awe-inspiring than simply being created by a god. But to the those who lived in the past, the latter was more believable than the former.

Now, that gets the ancients off the hook. How to explain the many people who believe the creation myth today? That's a separate question!

Good topic, James.