Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[shmogie]

It's very relevant. If complex and complicated things require creators, then what does that say about a creator god that would most likely be much more complicated and complex than it's creation?

It says nothing about a being outside of the universe, and outside of time. If you are trying to propose that a creator also has to be created, that dog won't hunt. The obverse of that coin is a creation without a creator. For years the steady state universe was the belief, always was and always will be. Now that we know the universe had a beginning, does that preclude a creator who always was and always will be ? I think not

 

[shmogie]

Well, yes. If you invoke God to explain things we don't know, you are not different from believers in Thor and Zeus as the origin of lighnings and thunders a few centuries ago. The historical track record of such way of thinking is quite dismal.

This should become apparent when you try to answer the following two questions:

1) How many times a metaphisical explanation has been replaced by a naturalistic one?
2) how many times a naturalistic explanation has been replaced by a metaphysical one?

By the way, we do know where the complexity of life comes from. Spoiler: it is not Zeus, nor any similar entities with equivalent plausibility.

So, I am not sure what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

You THINK you know where the complexity of life comes from. Nevertheless, you cannot provide any proof re the origin of life. Scientifically, it can't be explained. So, one cannot build a building without first having a foundation. Without the foundation of the origin of life, the subsequent construct is flawed and faulty, it falls down. As to your questions, the answers are irrelevant to the discussion. If one knows the odds of a universe creating itself is, conservatively, 10 to the fiftieth power to 1 against, and accepts it as happening, then the odds of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by metaphysical one at some point in time, must be acceptable too. And, acceptable by whom ? Scientific chauvinism precludes any answer but the predetermined one, it cannot have occurred but by the means we say it was.

 

[shmogie]

Let's start with Erik M. Leitch, Senior Technical Staff Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech Astronomy. At http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-cosmic-microw/ Erik says: "The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, or CMB for short, is a faint glow of light that fills the universe, falling on Earth from every direction with nearly uniform intensity. It is the residual heat of creation--the afterglow of the big bang--streaming through space these last 14 billion years like the heat from a sun-warmed rock, reradiated at night."

The second would be George Smoot, Nobel Prize Winner in science, whose discoveries Stephen Hawkings called the "discovery of the century, if not all time." What did Smoot say? Well, it's hard to get a link to his exact words, so I'll have to go with Berkeley Lab Director Steven Chu, a Nobel Laureate (1997 Nobel Prize in Physics), who said "My warmest congratulations goes out to George Smoot and John Mather for being awarded the 2006 Prize in Physics for their precision investigation of the cosmic microwave radiation, first discovered by a pair of Bell labs scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964. Maher and Smoot led a large team of scientists that showed with the COBE satellite that the radiation is precisely of the form that would be expected as a result of a Big Bang creation of the universe."

I hope these quotes satisfy.


I discard the Big Bang Theory because its problems are insurmountable. A simple look at http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html (note that this is not some fringe publication. It's from the physics department at a major university) shows that there are three major problems with the Big Bang Theory: The Horizon Problem (the universe is too big for light to have traveled across it in the amount of time the Big Bang allows for, yet the CMBR is uniform), The Flatness Problem (the universe is so flat that it's unlikely the Big Bang occurred), and The Monopole Problem (the Big Bang Theory predicts large numbers of magnetic monopoles in the universe, yet no one has ever found one. All magnetic anythings that we've found have two poles: a "north" and a "south" pole).

So sorry! I don't buy into known-wrong theories.


You say toMAYto... and I say toMAHto... you say "defective" I say "falsified." Six of one... half a dozen of the other.


Well, even ASSUMING that he was right... you have yet to demonstrate that the theory in question is even remotely plausible.

A very interesting conversation. As one who believes in intelligent design, a creationist, and knows a little about cosmology and astrophysics, the BB is the greatest scientific discovery of the last century, and it supports perfectly the creation as described in Genesis 1. The CMBR is not uniform, there are expected variations coinciding with the " clumping " of galaxies. As to the travel of light/ time issue, times is variable, not constant so I put little faith in this objection. Anyway, how does one explain the ever faster expansion of the universe without the BB ? This may have been addressed and I missed it, if so, my apologies for the question

 

[Sapiens]

Oh, THEY, who shall remain nameless, and whom I assume to be your teachers, stressed the importance of evidences(sic) and testings(sic). Out of curiosity, who was your English teacher, and what did he or she stress? I think that he or she should have stressed the difference between countable and uncountable nouns.

Well, when I left high school I majored in electronic engineering. I learned that bad boys rape our young girls but Violet goes willingly. I learned how to Thevanize, how to build class A, B, and C amplifiers, and how to construct logic gates such as NOR, XOR, NAND, etc.

What does that prove? No more than your example proves.

Given any data set, we can construct an infinite number of mathematical formulae that fit that data set. So which one has been confirmed?

Sure, we can get another data point, which will falsify some of the formulae, but with the new data set an infinite number of new mathematical formulae can be constructed. So which theory is confirmed by the data?

You know, before there were scientists, people sailed round the world, grew crops, built pyramids and cathedrals and did many amazing things. So what makes science so special?

Perhaps your cell phone sums it all up.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, but my guess is you think I am likely old school Christian and therefore take the bible literally. And because of this, I of course have some belief in OT and therefore do see Genesis as Creator God's factual story about how life came into existence, in which case, in a thread such as this, I ought to be able to present my reasonable argument that defends Genesis.

Here, I'll update you on things:
1 - Honestly, past creation type stories of almost all varieties (including scientific theories), are of little importance to me. I entertain them for sake of discussion but generally don't find much that is pertinent to practical life or current spiritual predicament.

2 - Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are in very broad terms, allegory to me.

3 - I do actually believe, have argued (do have a recent RF thread on this) that part of purpose of Genesis 2 is to explain to any spiritual person that god in that chapter caused humanity to fall into a deep sleep and has no reference to a waking up. I do not identify in that chapter a reference to Creator God past the first 3 verses. Any discussion about this is perhaps done in that other thread, but the narrative is still allegory for me, wish to make that clear in this thread.

4 - In my Christian understandings, via Reason, I do not subscribe to a notion that the Bible is the last time God has spoken to humanity. I actually consider that blasphemous. While I have respect for Gospel, it is not the end all for my Christian knowledge.

5 - Therefore, if I do enter into discussion about "verifiable evidence for creationism" it isn't, primarily, an argument for old school understanding on this concept. I get that for most on either side (theist or atheist), it is only about that conceptual approach. I enter such discussions with understanding of verifiable evidence for intelligent designer that is pertinent to current life. And is really me just entertaining a pet hypothesis I have which does, I find, have connection to current spiritual predicament, but is a round about way of getting to that. Less direct than what I think many would identify as clearly in domain of spirituality - that being forgiveness.

I understand "cafeteria Christianity" to be intended as derogatory term for how some Christians pick and choose what to accept as Christian teaching to abide by. Given the blasphemy I spoke of earlier, I would hope a Christian comes prepared if they really wish to have such an intellectual argument. If it is atheist/agnostic making this assertion, I observe them to be vastly under prepared.

Since you can backfill and invent your religion as you go debate with you is a waste of time.

I'm afraid that it is you who have butchered the concept.

Another claim without evidence.

Plus, when did "conservapedia" become some sort of an authority on these things?

For something like this no better or worse than most.

Popper claimed that we could determine which theories were better by assessing empirischer Gehalt, which means something like "empirical content." A valid scientific theory should make novel, testable predictions. Basically, the more a theory (or law) forbids the better the theory is. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity forbids a lot. It not only forbids objects to float or move sideways, but also forbids them from moving down at a constant rate or accelerating more slowly than its calculations allow. That makes for good science (although the law is wrong and demonstrably so).

Perhaps you have had half an education, but we'll see about the science half anon.

By way of comparison, the God concept in general and Genesis account in particular doesn't really forbid much. It spells out a certain order and a certain time frame, but that's about it.

That's basically why it is worthless, especially cafeteria style.

Similarly, the theory of natural selection contains little if any empirical content. If a breeding pair of domestic housecats is turned loose on a predator-free island filled with finches, what will happen? Well, the cats might kill all the finches and the starve. The cats might kill some finches while others live. The finches might adapt to the existence of the cats by engaging in avoidance behavior that has nothing to do with genetics. The finches adapt to the existence of the cats by displaying measurable changes in alleles. The cats might fail to catch enough food and starve to death.

You flunk on biological sciences. You create a bunch of stawmen that are rather obvious and manage to miss identifying the correct one of these outcomes, the change in alleles. You also fail to grasp that the finches might adapt to the existence of the cats by engaging in avoidance behavior that has EVERYTHING to do with genetics.

Proponents of natural selection will claim that all of the above is consistent with natural selection. That's why natural selection is not really scientific – it predicts nothing at all and thus is consistent with any empirical finding. What does that prove, really? A theory that fits every conceivable fact isn't much of a theory. I'll pass.

Stawman, grossly false, you're clearly not a biologist. In fact your clearly not a scientist since you claim that any model with a stochastic term is not "science".

 

[Acim]

Since you can backfill and invent your religion as you go debate with you is a waste of time.

I think what you meant was, "since you can use Reason and Philosophy, which clearly trumps science, debate with you is a waste of my efforts."

 

[gnostic]

Philosophy - which wouldn't rule out things dealing with existential consideration, that science has never truly addressed and overcome.

Sorry, but I have to disagree, because with philosophy there are endless varieties of views, therefore divided, so they are just as divided as any view.

Each different philosophy has philosophers with competing against all other philosophies, and philosophers can be opinionated and biased as any group vying for attention. Some philosophies have common ground that can share, while other philosophers think their philosophy is the only true one while they accuse the others being false. You have western philosophies competing against the east. You have those discount all things supernatural, including spirits and gods, while others venture into esoteric, occult, supernatural or spirituality.

Philosophies can be very exclusive or very inclusive, depending on which one you chooses to follow.

Sure, there might be philosophy that deal with existentialism, but there are others that do rule them out.

There are so many flavours of philosophies, so which is right? Which one is wrong?

Religiously, I am "agnostic", and agnosticism is a philosophical stance. Do you agree with everything about agnosticism? No?

I am fundamentally a humanist too. And as I follow humanism, it mean that I highly value human being above anything supernatural or divine (meaning ignoring superstitions and religious dogma).

You are very ignorant if you think all philosophies follow the same path, like what I quoted from you. And are you forgetting that science as we know it today, stemmed from earlier philosophies?

Modern science mixed different past philosophies, or selectively use them, such as naturalism, empiricism (evidence), epistemology (acquiring knowledge), logical positivism, rationalism, critical thinking, and probably a few others that I cannot think of at the top of my head, because it is morning, and I have only just woken up less than 15 minutes ago.

 

[gnostic]

It's not so much that I have a problem with science, per se. Science mostly doesn't work. Like a bumbling oaf, science might eventually stumble its way into a good answer. It's not likely, but stranger things have happened.

And you think religion or spirituality or philosophy have done better. Each of them have been stumble for centuries.

Sorry, but modern science have found more answers and gather more knowledge without the need of superstitious belief and blind faith.

And worse of all, religions, especially abrahamic religions have killed in the name of their one God, or in the name of prophetic (Muhammad) or messianic figures (Jesus). Both Christianity and Islam have spread like a plague, sometimes forcing people to convert or face death.

And philosophies can be no better. In China, the pursuit of Confucianism, pursuit of order, have led to persecution of those who follow Taoism and Buddhism. A large part of China history is lost because Confucians burning books that don't fit with their philosophy, their agenda.

So far, I have yet to see science becoming militant or becoming political force, except in science fiction, in which futuristic society, science has become oppressive regimes. Science fiction is not real, nothing of the sort happened in real life, but the same cannot be said with religions and philosophies.

When religions or philosophies gain too much powers - political social or military (or any combination of the three) - they are easily corrupted.

 

[Zosimus]

Perhaps your cell phone sums it all up.

Oh yes. The cell phone fallacy. How often have I heard this one. Let's summarize this carefully.
If your cell phone works, science is fantastic.
But what if my cell phone doesn't work?
Science is still fantastic.

Great PR – bad logic.

Another claim without evidence.

Claims do not require evidence. Or do you claim otherwise? If you claim that claims require evidence, then please provide the evidence that backs the claim that claims require evidence.

For something like this no better or worse than most.

Unlikely. All of these publications must have drawn their information from somewhere. Rather than posting hearsay, post the original source.

Perhaps you have had half an education, but we'll see about the science half anon.

4.0 perfect attendance.

That's basically why it is worthless, especially cafeteria style.

No, that's not why it's worthless that's why it's metaphysical. It's something outside the domain of science. Science is only good at dealing with specific, testable predictions. Science is useless for the important questions of life such as "why are we here?" or "what's the meaning of life?"

You're like a man with a hammer who thinks that everything in the world is either a nail to be hammered or completely useless.

You flunk on biological sciences. You create a bunch of stawmen that are rather obvious and manage to miss identifying the correct one of these outcomes, the change in alleles.

Congratulations! You have failed your reading comprehension test. As anyone can see if they look at the post, I specifically mentioned a change in alleles as one of the possibilities.

You also fail to grasp that the finches might adapt to the existence of the cats by engaging in avoidance behavior that has EVERYTHING to do with genetics.

No, I specifically said that. Try remedial reading classes.

Stawman, grossly false, you're clearly not a biologist. In fact your clearly not a scientist since you claim that any model with a stochastic term is not "science".

"In fact your clearly not a scientist..."

Could I offer you a grammar checker?

All right, you think that natural selection does make specific, testable predictions. Please explain which outcome of a pair of domestic breeding cats placed on an island would be inconsistent with the theory of natural selection. That ought to be good for a laugh.

 

[Zosimus]

And you think religion or spirituality or philosophy have done better. Each of them have been stumble for centuries.

Science is one type of philosophy – nothing more. Personally, I found the book "In Defense of Pure Reason" by Bonjour completely devestating to the philosophy in question.

Sorry, but modern science have found more answers and gather more knowledge without the need of superstitious belief and blind faith.

Since no one is talking about superstitious belief or blind faith (other than those contained in science), I don't see the point of this statement.

And worse of all, religions, especially abrahamic religions have killed in the name of their one God, or in the name of prophetic (Muhammad) or messianic figures (Jesus). Both Christianity and Islam have spread like a plague, sometimes forcing people to convert or face death.

Guilt by association logical fallacy.

And philosophies can be no better. In China, the pursuit of Confucianism, pursuit of order, have led to persecution of those who follow Taoism and Buddhism. A large part of China history is lost because Confucians burning books that don't fit with their philosophy, their agenda.

More guilt by association logical fallacy. Shall we mention how many people atheist communists killed?

So far, I have yet to see science becoming militant or becoming political force, except in science fiction, in which futuristic society, science has become oppressive regimes. Science fiction is not real, nothing of the sort happened in real life, but the same cannot be said with religions and philosophies.

Science is a charade designed to get federal grant money – nothing more.

 

[gnostic]

You THINK you know where the complexity of life comes from. Nevertheless, you cannot provide any proof re the origin of life. Scientifically, it can't be explained. So, one cannot build a building without first having a foundation. Without the foundation of the origin of life, the subsequent construct is flawed and faulty, it falls down.

Except that Genesis creation are largely based on Babylonian religion, which predate the existence of Israel by a thousand years. And the Babylonian religion actually stemmed directly from Sumerian religion by centuries. Which mean the Sumerian religion predated Israelite or Hebrew religion by 2 millennia.

And if Genesis is borrowing of Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths, then it make Judaism and Christianity (as well as Islam) following the same superstitions that predate them.

And that's not good foundation for the origin of life.

Scientific chauvinism precludes any answer but the predetermined one, it cannot have occurred but by the means we say it was.

Sorry, but you are forgetting or ignoring Christian history, which saw churches and Christian kingdoms gaining powers, and oppressing anyone with different views, with false charges of witchcraft or heresies.

Jesus' command, to not judge or persecute others was conveniently ignored by Christians and churches.

 

[gnostic]

Oh yes. The cell phone fallacy. How often have I heard this one. Let's summarize this carefully.
If your cell phone works, science is fantastic.
But what if my cell phone doesn't work?
Science is still fantastic.

And you think your rain and ground is wet a great analogy for science.

Such hypocrisy and dishonesty coming from you.

 

[gnostic]

More guilt by association logical fallacy. Shall we mention how many people atheist communists killed?

Wow, I was wondering when you get to that. It took longer than I thought.

And what you are doing now, confusing atheism and communism is not guilt by association?

If you look at atheism, and I mean seriously look at atheism, you would see that atheism has no political agenda. Atheism relate to the question of theism - the existence of deity or deities. They just disagree with the theistic stance, and nothing more.

There is no political policy, because atheism is not politics. Sure, an atheist can become a politician, but so can any monotheist or polytheist or deist.

Atheism also has nothing to do with science. Any atheist, theist, deist, or whatever, can choose to become a scientist, or a doctor or electrician or plumber or athlete or artist. A science is a profession that anyone can choose to do.

Guilt by association. Ha, you are such a hypocrite for making such a weak accusation.

 

[gnostic]

Science is a charade designed to get federal grant money – nothing more.

As do religion and philosophy.

Believers think they have or should have special rights, politically and socially, rights that they don't want to share with non-believers.

Religion and philosophy are also nothing more than a charade or a facade.

Religion and philosophy often resort to all sorts of logical fallacies in an attempt to prove their existence and to prove others (other religions and other philosophies) are wrong. They frequently use or resort to circular reasoning, fallacy of authority, fallacy of guilt by association (like atheism and science, atheism and evolution, or atheism and communism), excessively using a priori, confirmation bias, deductive fallacy, ad hominem (a couple of times you have insulted me by calling me a moron), begging the question, wishful thinking (blind faith and superstition), etc.

 

[shmogie]

Except that Genesis creation are largely based on Babylonian religion, which predate the existence of Israel by a thousand years. And the Babylonian religion actually stemmed directly from Sumerian religion by centuries. Which mean the Sumerian religion predated Israelite or Hebrew religion by 2 millennia.

And if Genesis is borrowing of Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths, then it make Judaism and Christianity (as well as Islam) following the same superstitions that predate them.

And that's not good foundation for the origin of life.



Sorry, but you are forgetting or ignoring Christian history, which saw churches and Christian kingdoms gaining powers, and oppressing anyone with different views, with false charges of witchcraft or heresies.

Jesus' command, to not judge or persecute others was conveniently ignored by Christians and churches.

Your assertion the the Genesis account is based upon babylonian theology is an opinion, and like rectums, everyone has one. As to Christian history, since when does the activities of alleged followers of a set of principles, idea's, concepts and required behavior, constitute a reasonable way to judge those principles, idea's and concepts ? A man can call himself a fence post, that doesn't make him one.

 

[Sapiens]

I think what you meant was, "since you can use Reason and Philosophy, which clearly trumps science, debate with you is a waste of my efforts."

Think what you want, it matters not. My conclusions about your liberal arts only approach is clear enough ... you know half what you need to. Does that make you half... ? That'd be my guess.

 

[james bond]

In line with II, III and V, how long ago did these events take place? About how many generations of humans have there been?

The exact time cannot be pinpointed, but many creationists believe it was between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. As for generations, it is hard to answer as the life spans of people living in ancient times was different from those living in post-flood times. In the Bible, it states 1000 generations in the Old Testament. How many years do you want to give per generation?

 

[james bond]

There is no evidence for any of this. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite, in most cases (save for maybe I).

Off the top of my head, I can think of which came first the chicken or the egg and the answer is the chicken. This has been verified by British scientists, using a supercomputer. They claim to have come up with the final and definitive answer as they identified the protein, ovocleidin-17, that is required to speed up the production of eggshell within the chicken. In twenty-four hours, an egg is ready to be laid. An egg cannot be produced without the chicken as the mechanism of the egg is quite complex. So, the chicken came first. This is testable.

 

[Zosimus]

And you think your rain and ground is wet a great analogy for science.

Such hypocrisy and dishonesty coming from you.

Rain and wet ground is not an analogy for science. It's an explanation of a simple principle of logic using every day events that everyone (except you apparently) can easily understand.

 

[Zosimus]

Wow, I was wondering when you get to that. It took longer than I thought.

And what you are doing now, confusing atheism and communism is not guilt by association?

Yes, a comparison of atheism and communism is guilt by association. That's the point of the comment!! Can't you follow a simple logical argument to its conclusion?!

If you look at atheism, and I mean seriously look at atheism, you would see that atheism has no political agenda. Atheism relate to the question of theism - the existence of deity or deities. They just disagree with the theistic stance, and nothing more.

No, atheism is a statement that no god(s) exist. This is something that you cannot say – that no one can say. The sensible point of view is skeptical agnosticism – to reserve judgement on an issue about which you have no information.

 

[gnostic]

As to Christian history, since when does the activities of alleged followers of a set of principles, idea's, concepts and required behavior, constitute a reasonable way to judge those principles, idea's and concepts ? A man can call himself a fence post, that doesn't make him one.

And yet Christians and believers of other religions (Muslims) often associated atheism with science or atheism with communism (as Zosimus just did).

Your assertion the the Genesis account is based upon Babylonian theology is an opinion, and like rectums, everyone has one.

It is not merely an opinion.

The epic of Gilgamesh have a history that span from the 3rd millennium BCE to 1st century CE. The Standard Version found in the tablets of the Library of Nineveh, are often word-for-word copy of the Bronze Age, during the Old Babylonian period and the Middle Babylonian period. And there is striking resemblance in the Gilgamesh of the Old and Middle versions about the Flood in the Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis, and the Epic of Atrahasis have many similarities to the fragments of Eridu Genesis.

Fragments of the Epic of Gilgamesh were found in Megiddo, dated to the mid-2nd millennium BCE, demonstrated that Canaanite society were at least familiar with the stories of Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim (or Atrahasis or Ziusudra).

Whether the names of Deluge hero be Ziusudra, Atrahasis or Utnapishtim, the story of Noah have much in common with the Mesopotamian myth, of which predated Genesis, and the Israelite kingdoms.

Likewise, the creation in Genesis 1, bears some resemblances to the Old Babylonian Enûma Elish ("Epic of Creation").

No extant version of the Genesis creation and flood exist in the Bronze Age, and that would mean Genesis wasn't written by Moses. In fact, there is no historical or archaeological evidences that Moses ever existed as a real person.

And shmogie, when you tell people what they say as just a matter of opinion, then be prepared to back up your own claim. I can very well say that your belief in everything in the bible, as a matter of your opinion. But then we will be trading accusations of whose opinions matter the most, and more than likely get no-where.

I know that you don't believe anything that I say, but you can read the stories of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis yourself. The books I would recommend are

Andrew George, The Epic Of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Penguin Classics, 1999.

This has all the available translations from Old Babylonian to Standard Version (from the Library of Nineveh), as well as 5 Sumerian poems of Gilgamesh, where Ziusudra and the Flood are mentioned and alluded to.

​

Stephanie Dalley, Myths From Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Oxford World's Classics, 1991 (revised edition 2000).

Dalley's translations include the Epic of Gilgamesh, Epic of Atrahasis and Enûma Elish ("Epic of Creation").
​

Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps That Once...Sumerian Poetry In Translation, Yale University Press, 1997.

Jacobsen has only Sumerian literature, which include the Flood myth (known by scholars today as Eridu Genesis), but there are few other Sumerian creation myths found here.​

The 1st two books are available in bookshops and they are affordable. Jacobsen's book on the other hand, can only be ordered through on-line shops (like Amazon), and I paid nearly $100, so definitely not cheap.

But if you don't have money, you will find some translations of Sumerian texts at:

ETCSL (Electronic Texts Corpus of Sumerian Literature), http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/):

The Flood Story <http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.7.4&charenc=j >
Gilgmec, Enkidu andd the Netherword <http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.1.4&charenc=j>
The Death of Gilgamec <http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.1.3&charenc=j>
​

You might not trust what I have to say, but there are some Christians and Jews, who also read the translations of Sumerian-Babylonian myths, and agreed as I do about Hebrew authors adapting older myths (creation and flood) into their own scriptures. Would you consider they also only have opinions?