How about the Myth of Physics while you're at it? Much of that is theoretical, especially in quatum mechanics and relativity. Atomic and sub-atomic particles are unobservable, how can anyone accept anything based on that as anything but a myth? What about the Myth of Meteorology since the Biblical flood shows the water cycle to be wrong? Much of geology has to be myth, how else could one accept plate techtonics? Astronomy is a myth since the Bible tells us that the sun revolves around the earth. Why with a little bit of effort you can write off just about all of science as a myth, can't you?
>>>How about the Myth of Physics while you're at it? . . . (clip) . . . Why with a little bit of effort you can write off just about all of science as a myth, can't you?<<<
Evolutionists say the darndest things when their cult is attacked as untestable and unobservable.
For the record, I seem to recall that Physics and the other branches of science are reasonably testable or observable. Not so for evolution.
Quantum mechanics and relativity make predictions which can be (and have been) verified with extreme precision. Atoms can be seen with atomic force and scanning tunneling microscopes. Subatomic particles can be visually tracked with cloud chambers, bubble chambers, and similar detectors. Plate tectonic movement can also be measured. There are no comparable tests for macro-evolution producing speciation. Evolution is probably true, but is not supported to the degree that many physical science theories are.
The Bible does not say whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth. The Bible does talk about the sun rising and setting. The weather channel also gives the times of sunrise and of sunset. The literary term for this is phenomenological language; phenomenological language is language that refers to how an event looks to the people that observe it. When I watch the sun, I see it moving in the sky. The earth is actually moving, but from what I see, the sun is moving. I am using phenomenological language, describing an event as I see it. Phenomenological language is not the same as scientific statements.
Even today we use phenomenological language to describe celestial events -- rise, set, moves across the sky. Surely not everyone who uses such language believes that it is not the earths rotation which causes this illusion. Zenith apex, altitude , azimuth, rise, set, are just a few of the many words used in modern astronomy that are from the point of view of the person doing the observation, or phenomenological language. Or do the astronomers really believe that it is the heavens that are moving while they remain stationary?