First a logical fallacy as it is an argument through assertion and an ad hominem.
Second your statement is contradictory, the reference you make to the miracles from the article is based on the fact that these do indeed violate the natural laws and in such an extreme as to constitute being literally impossible by our very understanding of said laws, ergo a miracle requiring another explanation.
Next you then proceed to use that fact to somehow indicate it refutes the notion of a prehistoric creation of a myth. If you had any understanding you know this “myth” has gone through ages of enlighten and some of the words / histories greatest thinkers who came to the conclusion that it is not a myth.
The classical great minds of science in large part all believed in a Creator, the debate was the nature of one. Hardly a bronze age derivation clung to by an illiterate and un-educated populace.
In short, your comment was unserious pabulum.
I concede that my claim that the explanations ("Creation Myths," etc.) offered by Bronze-Age nomadic tribesmen are "fantastic" and/or "less plausible" than those offered by modern scientists is a mere "assertion." So anyone who chooses to believe that, e.g., an Invisible Friend in the Sky is responsible for various natural phenomena is, of course, free to do so.
Yes, that could be construed as an ad hominem. But by the same token, your claim that,
If you had any understanding you know this “myth” has gone through ages of enlighten[ment?] and some of the words [sic!] / histories [sic!] greatest thinkers who came to the conclusion that it is not a myth.
...is an obvious argumentum ab auctoritate.
I find it particularly telling that you neglected to mention by name even only a single of the "world's / history's" greatest thinkers who came to such a conclusion. Maybe because they all predate the Copernican Revolution / the steam engine / the electric light bulb?
Regards,