Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Truly Enlightened]

Is the Earth or the Universe, billions, thousands, or a week old? I think we can quickly dismiss the 6 - 7 day creation claim, since we know that IF the Earth was created before the sun, moon and stars, then the Earth would be older than the rest of the Universe. Clearly, this is impossible. When we are looking back 14 billion years into the past, how can the Earth be 10 billion years younger? Also, how was the first day determined without a Sun, or even a night? How could the Earth exist, or sustain grass and vegetation without the Sun? Does this also mean that if we send information for six days, we will be receiving it for 16 Billion years? It is merely another Creation story, similar to the many Creation stories that pre-date the Bible(Enuma Elish, Babylonian, Atrahasis, Memphite). Therefore, no 6-7 day creation is logically or rationally possible. If the evidence indicates Millions of years of history, then all thousands of year claims will disappear. It is the convergence of evidence that will determine the degree of certainty of any claim. And, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be. Unfortunately, there are no counter-claims advancing Creationist claims. There are only concerted efforts to disprove science claims. The old misguided logic, that if you can disprove one claim, you automatically prove another claim by default. The Bible is not extraordinary evidence, since it was compiled, edited, interpreted, contracted, and written by men. So the issue here is the degrees of certainty based on objective, non-faith-based evidence.

Logic dictates that no object can be found on Earth before the Earth existed. Therefore, all object on the planet could only have existed after the Earth had formed. This would imply a timeline sequence for the existence of everything on the planet(rocks, atmosphere, climate, life, etc.). Using more refined radiometric, chemical, and fossil analysis, a more increasingly accurate timeline can be established for all things. It is the convergence and consistency of evidence(Distances from galaxies, Speed of light, dating Mars and Moon rocks, Acasta Gneisses, Zirconium Silicate Crystals, stromatolite fossils, cyanobacteria, etc.), that is scientifically viable. The Earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old, and the Universe is 13.8 Billion years old(from our perspective). That is of course, if you agree with the overwhelming evidences that seem overwhelmingly consistent. But humans are not always rational at all times. This is evident through their belief system, or their own presuppositions. Science do not simply make the evidence fit the Theory. Science reveals IF the evidence supports the Theory. Personal Belief and systems presuppositions have no such constraints.

 

[Native]

Regarding what Gen 1:1 means, it is clear not only from Gen 1 but also Noah pre flood that man was given plants to eat, not involving death in the world.... death came through sin.. no sin initially so no death

For another thing I think it's a misunderstanding that Gen 1:1 to 1:2 supports gaps of millions or billions of years The Hebrew is more like the earth was 'tophu v'bofu', a phra like "helter skelter" formess and void

in Exodus when the Jews were in a formless and void dessert and God makes a nation from nothing there as well The emphasis on God making out of nothing, whether light in darkness, a world from nothing, children from Abraham, Jews form Egypt

For another it is clear not only from Gen 1 but also Noah pre flood that man was given plants to eat, not involving death in the world.... death came through sin.. no sin initially so no death

----------------
Genesis is about the creation as such. The numerous cultural stories of creation must logically deal with factual issues.

We all live on the same planet Earth; in the same Solar System; in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the OBSERVABLE Universe. What you see on the celestial Sky from the Earth is naturally embedded in these ancient stories of creation and our ancestors used all kinds of imagery/symbols from the Earth in order to describe what is going on in the Sky. This is the story of genesis and it begin with the pre-conditions of the creation by describing cosmic clouds which comes together as "primordial rivers" and when the first firm matters ( and NOT the Earth!) was created by the central (electromagnetical) light in the Milky Way.

The patriarchal religions have all lost the mythical and cosmological language and understanding and the entire story is historically personalized both regarding the divine forces which creates everything and especially they have lost/abandoned/banned the divine female part of explanation of the creation. Nothing can be created without a male and female quality cooperation and everything cannot be explained by just referring to a male "god".

The ancient world picture was at the largest an image of the Milky Way and the creation stories are closely connected to the pre-conditions of the coming Milky Way and a description of the Milky Way itself, which center is named as the "center of creation" i.e. "The garden of Eden". Read this - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

The central creation in our barred Milky Way speaks of a formation in the center and a dispersion of stars OUT from the center and out in the galactic arms. The biblical way of explaining this cosmological formation is "a creation in this Eden center where the tree of life is standing and an expulsion away from the Eden". This has NOTHING to do with any human sin and a divine revenge! It is pure cosmological descriptions.

The very contours of the Milky Way is often mentioned as the "heavenly river" which runs in the Sky all over and around the Earth. This cosmological information was historically interpreted as "a huge flood which once upon a time ran geographically all over the Earth as a divine revenge" which is a divine nonsense. The "Noah Flood" is simply the Milky Way river and the Snake in the garden of Eden simply symbolizes the entire contours of the Milky Way where this "Snake" resembles the creation itself and the circuit of life and death. Read more here - Serpent (symbolism) - Wikipedia

Regards
Ivar Nielsen
My personal Mytho-Cosmological website - Ancient Science. The Ancient and native Way of Knowledge

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I use the Jewish Tanach but I have not found Jewish sources adequate enough as I am not a Hebrew speaker. That is why I rely on Strongs, which I find explains things very adequately for an English speaker.

Thanks. That attitude explains volumes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How on earth can scientist in this 21st century predict with any accuracy what happened on this earth 400 million years ago? Who said insects evolved from crustaceans? Or that insects were land bound at first? Or that one lineage of insects evolved flight, the first animals to do so....? Seriously you guys will swallow anything that science tells you when they also say that they can "prove" nothing. SMH.

Yep ...

 

[Audie]

For someone who said that "the forum would be better without so many posts dripping with ponderous (and misplaced) sarcasm"....and what else did you call it?...."sarcastic ignorance" or " arrogant ignorance".....I guess you'd better eliminate yourself from this forum then, following your own advice.

I personally find it amusing when ignorantly arrogant people call others, ignorantly "arrogant" as if they had not noticed their own.....but that is just my opinion.

You could save time if you just said "Back at ya".
It would leave time for a few seconds of that ol'
introspection you so desprrately need- and avoid.

 

[exchemist]

How am I wrong? Not only that but Origen perception of that scripture is symbolic but not all of it is considered symbolic. Here is Augustines view.

/Confessions/Book XII/Chapter VIII Heaven and Earth Were Made "In the Beginning;" Afterwards the World, During Six Days, from Shapeless Matter.
8. But that heaven of heavens was for You, O Lord; but the earth, which You have given to the sons of men, to be seen and touched, was not such as now we see and touch. For it was invisible and "without form," and there was a deep over which there was not light; or, darkness was over the deep, that is, more than in the deep. For this deep of waters, now visible, has, even in its depths, a light suitable to itsnature , perceptible in some manner unto fishes and creeping things in the bottom of it. But the entire deep was almost nothing, since hitherto it was altogether formless; yet there was then that which could be formed. For Thou, OLord, hast made the world of a formless matter, which matter, out of nothing, You have made almost nothing, out of which to make those great things which we, sons of men, wonder at. For very wonderful is this corporeal heaven, of which firmament, between water and water, the second day after the creation of light, Thou said, Let it be made, and it was made. Which firmament You called heaven, that is, the heaven of this earth and sea, which You made on the third day, by giving a visible shape to the formless matter which You made before all days. For even already had Thou made a heaven before all days, but that was the heaven of this heaven; because in the beginning You had made heaven and earth. But the earth itself which You had made was formless matter, because it was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep. Of which invisible and formless earth, of which formlessness, of which almost nothing, You might make all these things of which this changeable world consists, and yet consists not; whose very changeableness appears in this, that times can be observed and numbered in it. Because times are made by the changes of things, while the shapes, whosematter is the invisible earth aforesaid, are varied and turned.

Again, very literal.

I really think you are grasping at air with this. Also you made the statement, that a literal interpretation of Genesis actually surfaced in the 19th century. That also is untrue and I have shown that by showing many pieces of early literature that disproves that.

Firstly, my quote from Origen is unambiguous: he considers the literal idea of the garden of Eden absurd. I quote Diarmid MacCulloch, from his book "A History of Christianity": "...Origen followed Clement in relishing the use of an "allegorical" method of understanding the meaning of literary texts.....this is how the Greeks read Homer and how learned Alexandrian Jews like Philo read the Tanakh."

So it is clear: neither Origen nor Clement, his predecessor, read the OT literally. This is around 200 AD.

Secondly, re Augustine of Hippo (200 years or so later), MacCulloch says he too found allegory useful. On his views on creation, the Wiki article on Augustine has this to say:-
" In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days as a literal interpretation of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the Book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way – it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omnia simul ("He created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.[91] As an additional support for describing the six days of creation as a heuristic device, Augustine thought that the actual event of creation would be incomprehensible by humans and therefore need to be translated."

So again, this is not a literalist view. Importantly for the current discussion, Augustine was also well aware of the need to be flexible in interpreting the bible when coming up against scientific findings. I quote the Wiki article on interpretations of Genesis:

"Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote: " It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.[16]
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

So he is saying very clearly that the message of scripture is a spiritual one and not a scientific account.

See also the Wiki article on the history of biblical literalism: Biblical literalism - Wikipedia

This also states that biblical literalism first became an issue in the c.18th.

 

[gnostic]

If so, this undermines the very speculation of an "old Earth or young Earth". The Earth is just that old as much of the other planets in the Solar System since they all were created out from the Sun and the entire Solar System was once created in the center of the Milky Way galaxy and driven out from this center i.e. "Driven out of the central creation garden of Eden" in the biblical sense.

The part I’ve highlighted. I have not read any creation of this type before. It is the first time for me.

And it sounds no less silly than the Bible or the Qur’an version. And no less made up.

Do you have any evidence for this one?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... it sounds no less silly than the Bible or the Qur’an version.

With respect to Genesis, perhaps what is silly (and deeply condescending) is you understanding, your expectations, or both.

 

[gnostic]

With respect to Genesis, perhaps what is silly (and deeply condescending) is you understanding, your expectations, or both.

If Genesis was a collection of allegories, then I have no problem with it.

I understand if these stories were used as teaching device, like Jesus with his parables, as in teaching morals and ethic through illustrative stories, then I have no issues with this.

But when I see people tried to mix a literal creation story with science - be it astronomy, biology or any other science - then yes, it is silly, and I do have problems with their interpretations.

Even when they tried to entwine Genesis with history, it falls far short, in the independent historical record department and in the archaeological department.

I read myths, legends, folklore and fables all the time, I really love reading ancient storytelling. But the differences between me and some believers, is that I don’t assume what I read to be true; “true” in scientific or historical sense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I read myths, legends, folklore and fables all the time, I really love reading ancient storytelling. But the differences between me and some believers, is that I don’t assume what I read to be true; “true” in scientific or historical sense.

And yet you read Genesis and deem it silly. That's on you.

 

[exchemist]

And yet you read Genesis and deem it silly. That's on you.

I'm not sure the phrase "no less silly" implies that Genesis is thought silly. May it not be just that the rival idea has no greater claim to reason than Genesis does?

An allegory can convey truth, and I do not read in Gnostic's post 129 any dismissal of that possibility. The silliness, according to Gnostic (and I would agree) seems to be in people who insist on taking an allegory as a recitation of literal facts, in the face of evidence to the contrary from both science and the inconsistencies in the bible itself. This is exactly what Augustine of Hippo (per my post 126) warned against, back around 400AD, isn't it?

 

[Skwim]

I would like to see how many of our users here believe in which theory (old earth or young earth) and why.

Actually, the young earth "theory" is a young earth need. Some Christians need the earth to be only 6,000 years old in order to save the veracity of their theology. Moreover, a scientific theory is an explanation that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment, whereas the young earth position is a simple statement of belief. It's like comparing apples and Chevrolets.

.

 

[Native]

New The part I’ve highlighted. I have not read any creation of this type before. It is the first time for me.

(Native said: ↑
If so, this undermines the very speculation of an "old Earth or young Earth". The Earth is just that old as much of the other planets in the Solar System since they all were created out from the Sun and the entire Solar System was once created in the center of the Milky Way galaxy and driven out from this center i.e. "Driven out of the central creation garden of Eden" in the biblical sense).

And it sounds no less silly than the Bible or the Qur’an version. And no less made up.

Do you have any evidence for this one?

------------

I understand your skepticism because I too haven´t read of such a creation/formation explanation anywhere in the modern cosmology. I have studied comparative mythology and religion for some 35 years with the focus on the numerous cultural stories of creation and I´m also trying to compare the essence from these studies with modern cosmology and its huge amount of cosmological images.

I have come to the conclusion that the most specific ancient stories of the creation deals with the creation of our local world view which includes the Milky Way galaxy, which is a barred galaxy as illustrated here - Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

The standing theories of galaxies is contradicted by the observed galactic rotation curve - Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia - because of the uniform motions of all stars compared to the galactic center. If you study the barred structure in the Milky Way there is NO WAY the formative motion can go from the galactic arms and take a 90 degree turn into the bars and further on into the galactic center.

It goes the other way around: The formative forces in the galactic center assembles dust and gas and melts everything together via the huge electromagnetic force, thus making stars which flows out from the galactic center when reaching a critical mas and weight. The dispersion of newborn stars from the Milky Way center works very similar to a two arm rotating garden water sprinkler and this is why all stars orbits the galactic center with the same velocity. The stars are slung out from the center and have a steady outgoing motions in the galactic arms. This confirms the scientific observed galactic rotation.

When our rotating Sun was slung out in the galactic bars, the planets was born out from the still very hot Sun and later on the planetary moons were born out of their mother planets.

I have no other evidences than what I´ve concluded from my reading of the ancient creation myths - and using my logical senses on the images from modern astronomical observations and studying the astronomical problems and its contradictions. I am sure though that I am fairly correct in my perceptions and conclusions, which is:

The ancient mythical/cosmological knowledge of creation can easily be compared to modern science - and in many cases the old knowledge surpasses the modern cosmological theories, mostly because the old knowledge of the creation was/is circular instead of linear. And because the ancient stories of creation specifically dealt with and was/is specifically connected with the Milky Way galaxy, a connection which is mostly excluded in the modern cosmological theories when dealing with the creation of our Solar System - and also mostly forgotten by scholars who study comparative mythology and religion.

(The debate of "an old or a young Earth" is of course out of the question with this explanation)

Remember: You read it first here

 

[gnostic]

And yet you read Genesis and deem it silly. That's on you.

Perhaps I should I have explain more than just assert the bible being “silly”.

What I really meant that people who tried to interpret the Bible, by mixing science with the creation and flood stories to be silly, not the Genesis itself.

I have read the Sumerian poems of Enki and Ninmah, of Gilgamesh and the badly preserved Eridu Genesis, and the Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh.

Each of these include how humans were shaped and made from clay, and from water, or in the case of Atrahasis - the blood of slain god of intelligence.

Due to the popularity of these stories, tablets have been found as early as the mid-2nd millennium BCE Bronze Age, in Egypt, in the Hittite capital, and in Ugarit and Megiddo. There are no doubts it was still popular in Iron Age Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires.

And that when the Genesis was composed at some point in Iron Age Israel-Judah history, before the Fall of Jerusalem, the Assyrian and Babylonian creation stories must have influenced the Hebrew writers to write their own versions of creation and flood found in Genesis.

We don’t know who were the authors and editors, by name, but we know that it wasn’t written by Moses, as Jewish traditions indicated. We know Genesis and other books of the Torah were written at some points in 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE.

None of this silly, so far.

The silly part comes in when modern believers tried to use science (eg biology, astronomy, archaeology, etc) with the Genesis.

The reason why I bring up the Sumerian-Akkadian creation stories, is that no one today is trying to prove that humans can be created from clay and water. No one is trying to prove in Mesopotamian stories of the flood, of talking animals.

Creationists on the other hand, be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim, some of them have tried to mix science and their respective scriptures to convinced others that it is “scientifically” possible.

It is these “silly” creationists who tried to prove their scriptures with science.

That’s what I found to be “silly”.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have said the bible is “silly”, perhaps I should have been clearer that some people that literally believe that these stories are scientifically possible to be “silly”.

It was my mistake for not being specific enough what I found silly. And for that I am sorry if what I originally wrote offended you.

 

[Deeje]

Thanks. That attitude explains volumes.

The fact that you only stick to biased Jewish sources does to me too.

We all believe what we want to believe because it seems like Jewish pride is at stake here. Tumah's comments were a classic example of Jewish justification in the matter of God's covenant in our discussion on the other thread God Chose Them but For What Purpose?

If I cannot speak Hebrew, then I am going to rely on a trusted source to help me understand what Hebrew scripture says.

 

[gnostic]

------------

I understand your skepticism because I too haven´t read of such a creation/formation explanation anywhere in the modern cosmology. I have studied comparative mythology and religion for some 35 years with the focus on the numerous cultural stories of creation and I´m also trying to compare the essence from these studies with modern cosmology and its huge amount of cosmological images.

I have come to the conclusion that the most specific ancient stories of the creation deals with the creation of our local world view which includes the Milky Way galaxy, which is a barred galaxy as illustrated here - Barred spiral galaxy - Wikipedia

The standing theories of galaxies is contradicted by the observed galactic rotation curve - Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia - because of the uniform motions of all stars compared to the galactic center. If you study the barred structure in the Milky Way there is NO WAY the formative motion can go from the galactic arms and take a 90 degree turn into the bars and further on into the galactic center.

It goes the other way around: The formative forces in the galactic center assembles dust and gas and melts everything together via the huge electromagnetic force, thus making stars which flows out from the galactic center when reaching a critical mas and weight. The dispersion of newborn stars from the Milky Way center works very similar to a two arm rotating garden water sprinkler and this is why all stars orbits the galactic center with the same velocity. The stars are slung out from the center and have a steady outgoing motions in the galactic arms. This confirms the scientific observed galactic rotation.

When our rotating Sun was slung out in the galactic bars, the planets was born out from the still very hot Sun and later on the planetary moons were born out of their mother planets.

I have no other evidences than what I´ve concluded from my reading of the ancient creation myths - and using my logical senses on the images from modern astronomical observations and studying the astronomical problems and its contradictions. I am sure though that I am fairly correct in my perceptions and conclusions, which is:

The ancient mythical/cosmological knowledge of creation can easily be compared to modern science - and in many cases the old knowledge surpasses the modern cosmological theories, mostly because the old knowledge of the creation was/is circular instead of linear. And because the ancient stories of creation specifically dealt with and was/is specifically connected with the Milky Way galaxy, a connection which is mostly excluded in the modern cosmological theories when dealing with the creation of our Solar System - and also mostly forgotten by scholars who study comparative mythology and religion.

(The debate of "an old or a young Earth" is of course out of the question with this explanation)

Remember: You read it first here

In ancient myths, no one knew anything about the real nature of the Milky Way.

In fact, no one really knew much about the Solar System, the sun, planets, moons and asteroids. In fact, they didn’t even know the sun is actually a star. People just assumed that the sun was different.

Back then, without the telescope, no one knew that the Milky Way was a barred spiral galaxy.

I don’t know what the Egyptians and Babylonians call the Milky Way, but the Milky Way was a Greek name for galaxías kýklos γαλαξίας κύκλος, “milky circle” which was translated into Latin as via lactea, with via being “road”, “path” or “way”.

The Milky Way was view by the ancient as high concentration of stars that give it shape like disk.

People throughout the ages (when there were no telescopes yet), thought the stars were countless in the night sky, but if they were to really painstakingly count them at their location, they would see around about 2200 to 2400 stars.

But it really depends on location. The people living further away from the equator, be it the northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere, won’t see the same exact number of stars.

But in total, the count is 9096 stars...again without the telescope.

People before the telescopes, can only see the Milky Way, and they thought the observable Andromeda and Triangulum were stars, not galaxies. And even after with the telescopes before 1919, astronomers revised their views that Andromeda and Triangulum were not stars, but nebulae and part of the Milky Way...but they still didn’t realise Andromeda and Triangulum were separate galaxies.

In 1919, it was Edwin Hubble using the new constructed observatory with a larger and more powerful telescopes, that he discovered Andromeda and Triangulum weren’t nebulae, but spiral galaxies in their own rights.

For you to say the Solar System was created inside and then spat out from Milky Way’s galactic centre, not only absurd, but the ancient star gazers knew nothing about the centre of the Milky Way. It was after 1919 that they began finding more galaxies.

The ancient myths have no understanding of the universe, let alone the Milky Way, but they do make up various stories about stars and constellations, and have no bearing on modern astronomy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I cannot speak Hebrew, then I am going to rely on a trusted source to help me understand what Hebrew scripture says.

On what basis do you choose not to trust the sources I've raised. They are widely acknowledged experts in the field. Can you offer a single reference which calls into question that expertise?

 

[Deeje]

On what basis do you choose not to trust the sources I've raised. They are widely acknowledged experts in the field. Can you offer a single reference which calls into question that expertise?

After having conversations with Jewish believers over the years, I find that their adherence to scripture is very much like Christendom's.
They tend to lean on tradition rather than on God's word.

I don't question their expertise as much as their agenda. I am a Christian and I have Jesus' word for the fact that the Pharisees of his day could not be trusted as custodians of the word of God. Just read Matthew 23 and see why. Do I have reason to believe those ones today who teach virtually the same thing?

As I said, my conversations with Tumah were very enlightning. He made so many excuses for what he believed. I didn't buy any of them.

In my research to date, I like to use Strongs because I get to the root meaning of a word itself and I get to see how it is translated in other parts of the Bible. I then check out the Tanach to see how it is rendered there. I go back and forth until I reach a conclusion about the accuracy of a Bible verse in context. It is a good use of time IMO.

 

[Native]

The silly part comes in when modern believers tried to use science (eg biology, astronomy, archaeology, etc) with the Genesis.

The reason why I bring up the Sumerian-Akkadian creation stories, is that no one today is trying to prove that humans can be created from clay and water. No one is trying to prove in Mesopotamian stories of the flood, of talking animals.

---------
Can you really differ from the ancient stories of creation and the theories of modern cosmology? Both areas are speaking of the formation of the cosmos, so naturally there must be some way to compare these two approaches.
if you dont understand the "mud and water" sentence in the Sumerian-Akkadian creation stories, would you then also refuse that humans are made of particles and gaseous liquids?
Why are you reading the ancient myths of creation if you dont take them as ancient knowledge?

 

[Native]

For you to say the Solar System was created inside and then spat out from Milky Way’s galactic centre, not only absurd, but the ancient star gazers knew nothing about the centre of the Milky Way. It was after 1919 that they began finding more galaxies.

The ancient myths have no understanding of the universe, let alone the Milky Way, but they do make up various stories about stars and constellations, and have no bearing on modern astronomy.

-----------------
Obviously you dont believe in ancient myths since you read these as a kind of entertainment without any connections to facts.

Back in 3.200 BC the Egyptians worshipped the Milky Way with their Mother Goddess of creation, Hathor, who resembled the very contours of the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere. This goddess was closely connected to the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, where the first central entity was Amun-Ra with a close "family" connection to the Milky Way Mother Goddess, Hathor, and together Amun-Ra and Hathor created everything visible in the Milky Way galaxy.

Read these links:
The Infinite Ogdoad: The Creation Pantheon of Ancient Egypt and Predecessor Gods of the Old Kingdom
and
Hathor - Wikipedia

So, contrary to your refusals, ancient people had very specific knowledge of the Milky Way and its formation processes. iI is just that you can´t see the connections because you dont work with needed "mythical dots" in order to get the overall picture.

I´m afraid you also misses my scientific points and explanations because you are biased against the mythical stories - which you have som much fun from

Note: I am NOT a creationist.