What are the characteristics of the creation myths?
147613
in the begining God created the heavens and the earth ... the bible  acent text better says it than sicence cause if we came from monkeyes in stead of God y r monkeys still round??
80179
Re.:  Dinosaurs \n\n\nI believe that God created upon this earth PRIOR TO Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3.\n\nI believe God destroyed all prior creation (Gen.1:2) to bring forth man created in God's likeness (Gen.1:26), with an UNBROKEN lineage beginning with Adam.\n\n\n\nPat (ndbpsa ©)
1045525
Chinese Myths.\n\nPangu and the Creation of the World\nThis myth is similar to many creation myths worldwide, in which the world is formed out of the body of a primal being.\n\nIn the beginning there was darkness everywhere, and Chaos ruled. Within the darkness there formed an egg, and inside the egg the giant Pangu came into being. For aeons, safely inside the egg, Pangu slept and grew. When he had grown to gigantic size he stretched his huge limbs and in so doing broke the egg. The lighter parts of the egg floated upwards to form the heavens and the denser parts sank downwards, to become the earth. And so was formed earth and sky, Yin and Yang.\n\n\nPangu saw what had happened and he was pleased. But he feared that heaven and earth might meld together again, so he placed himself between them, his head holding up the sky and his feet firmly upon the earth. Pangu continued to grow at a rate of ten feet a day for 18,000 years, so increasing the distance between heaven and earth, until they seemed fixed and secure, 30,000 miles apart. Now exhausted, Pangu went back to sleep and never woke up.\n\nPangu died, and his body went to make the world and all its elements. The wind and clouds were formed from his breath, his voice was thunder and lightning, his eyes became the sun and moon, his arms and his legs became the four directions of the compass and his trunk became the mountains. His flesh turned into the soil and the trees that grow on it, his blood into the rivers that flow and his veins into paths men travel. His body hair became the grass and herbs, and his skin the same, while precious stones and minerals were formed from his bones and teeth. His sweat became the dew and the hair of his head became the stars that trail throughout heaven. As for the parasites on his body, these became the divers races of humankind.\n\nAlthough Pangu is dead, some say he is still responsible for the weather, which fluctuates according to his moods.
910470
There is an "end of the world" myth in every civilization, most involve the gods coming down and remaking the world as well. \n\nMany civilizations have a flood myth, lots have some tell of giants, unicorns, trolls and the such. That doesn't mean they're bound to happen, only that all the people of the world wondered about these things.
787122
well gee ... that's the point.  that's why believing in a creation myth instead of science is easier.  no complex thinking, no in depth studying, no extended understanding, no extra effort required.  "God did it" simple.
526385
i hope this a help to you\nAmen\n"The Hidden One," a primordial creation-deity\nAnubis\nEgyptian god of the dead\nBast\nEgyptian cat goddess\nBes\nEgyptian dwarf god believed to guard against evil spirits and misfortune\nChons\nEgyptian moon god\nDua\nProtector of the stomach of the deceased\nGeb\nGod of the Earth\nHathor\nEgyptian cow goddess\nIsis\nEgyptian mother goddess\nKa\nEgyptian name for the vital force of life\nMaat\nEgyptian goddess of truth and justice\nMin\nEgyptian fertility god\nMut\nWife of Amen, mother of Khons\nNephthys Egyptian goddess of the dead\nNut\nEgyptian goddess of the sky and of the heavens\nOsiris\nEgyptian god of the underworld and of vegetation\nQetesh\nGoddess of love and beauty\nRe\nEgyptian sun god\nSelket\nScorpion goddess, helper of women in childbirth\nSet\nEgyptian god of chaos\nShu\nEgyptian god of the air\nSobek\nEgyptian crocodile god\nTaweret\nHippopotamus goddess and protective deity of childbirth\nThoth\nEgyptian moon god\nWepwawet\nGod of war and of the funerary cult
748480
It's an urban myth, like most Creationist stories about evolution. In fact, from the biographies I've read, Darwin lent more and more towards agnosticism or atheism as he got older, starting out as a very strong believer in the Genesis story when he set sail on the Beagle, and disbelieving Christianity but still believing in God when he wrote the Origin of Species.
672165
No, Dinosaurs are not a myth.  We have thousands of specimens of fossilized dinosaur remains that indicate that these were indeed real creatures that once lived on our planet.\n\nI have no idea what a "Dimo" is, so I can't answer whether or not the 'Anatomy and Physiology of the Dimo' supports the existence of Dinosaurs, however the anatomy and physiology of archosaurs, avians, and the dinosaurs themselves certainly supports their existence.\n\nThe bone of an animal does not out weigh the flesh.  The skeleton of a 150 pound man would only weigh 10 to 15 pounds.  That comes out to at most about 10% of the weight of the flesh.\n\nWhy wouldn't the creator make carnivores before man?  The bible even says he created the animals before he created man.  Even if you believe the flawed, illogical sequence of creation put forth in the biblical account, there's no reason not to believe that dinosaurs could exist.\n\n'What flood?'  Exactly!  What flood?  There is absolutely no geological evidence that there has ever been a global, total flood that covered the entire Earth in water.  Even if there were, it has nothing to do with the existence or not of dinosaurs.\n\nDinosaurs did not kill themselves off.  The hypothesis with the widest general acceptance in the scientific community is that a massive impact with a meteor or comet at the end of the Cretaceous in conjunction with other stressors brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs.  Certainly no one has ever suggested that the dinosaurs somehow deliberately caused the meteor to crash.\n\nWhat doesn't look natural about their construction in the various re-constructions you have seen?  I have seen some that look very good, and others that look like cheap Hollywood effects (mostly because they are).  I've also seen cartoons where people are depicted with yellow skin, giant bug eyes and three fingers.  That doesn't mean that people don't exist, just that the depiction is not very accurate.  Critters like three-toed sloth, pangolins, sea cucumbers and walking sticks don't look 'natural' either, and yet they do indeed exist.  Just because a creature doesn't meet your expectations of beauty or conform to your notion of what a proper animal looks like doesn't mean they are mythical.\n\nNo one has to lie to get people to 'believe' in evolution.  People who actually look at things like physical evidence and scientific experimentation without jumping to pre-drawn conclusions based on religious dogma are almost invariably convinced of the validity of evolutionary theory.  The only lies are spread by those who refuse to accept evidence that they erroneously believe attacks their religious beliefs.\n\nMan doesn't come directly from a fish.  If you look at the morphological and anatomical similarities between a Sarcopterygian fish and an early amphibian, between an amphibian and a reptile, between a synapsid reptile and an early mammal, between an early mammal and an insectivore, between an insectivore and a prosimian lemur, between a lemur and a monkey, between a monkey and an ape, between an ape and an early hominid, between the hominid and Homo erectus and between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens, you too will see the constant, slow and gradual development of some characters and the conservative retention of other characters that indicates a long and gradual evolutionary process from fish to man.\n\nThe Big Bang theory is a whole 'nother topic, even bigger, you might want to post another question about that.  It too has little to do with the reality of dinosaur existence.\n\nMaybe the book "Jarasic Park" talks about the "myth of Dinosaurus", but the novel "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton which was made into a series of increasingly bad films certainly does not.
919088
The God of the Old Testament appears to have more than one personality. The identity of God seems to vary with the author. I see religion as an evolutionary process.
586100
You make some good points. I think it is like circular creationism. Humans create god and in return god creates humans. Simple. Reality creates fiction and in return fiction creates reality. Just look at how many religions there are in the world. Why? Because every culture imagines god(s) differently.
253041
How about this version of the myth?
355107
Well, there IS a good explanation. The story about creation is a way how simple people explained stuff to themselves. \nYou see, if you read the creation theory, you'll see the things appeared in the similar order than they actually did. \nAt first, there was "light", which of course means the glowing mass of gasses and molten metals in the emptiness of space. When it cooled down and the water condensed, they became earth and water. \nLater on, then plants appeared, after them the animals and as the last one, humans, which are only about thirty thousand years old. \n\nIf you try to represent this to simple people, as the peoples of near east 2000 years ago no doubt were, you'll have trouble making them understand what 65 million years is and how come a dinosaur would evolve from an one-cell creature. So you make up a god and tell them the story happened in 7 days and they go away happy with their own understanding of the process. \n\nIt's basically the same, just VERY simple. \n\nWhat I don't understand, however, is HOW the hell nowadays, in the era of computers and high technology, some EQUALLY simple people can exist. \nWell, for THEM, the theory of evolution CERTAINLY doesn't exist, their mentality remained at the same point of functioning as it was 2000 or even 5000 years ago, I'm afraid.
583546
The Rainbow Serpent belief not only is widely sparse through the Aboriginal Australia, but it does also appear to exist in other societies and cultures (in this instance it suffices to narrow the definition to belief, whilst I shall demonstrate in the following discussion, the complexity of the ideological system enclosed in the terminology). By means of discussing the origins of the Rainbow Serpent belief, through analysing a version of a Northern Australian myth, and by discussing an Aboriginal ritual, I shall analyse the results of my research in light of 'matriarchal' perspectives and attempt to demonstrate that, being the Rainbow Serpent one of the oldest "religious belief documented in the world" (Flood, J. 1983. page 150), embodies important elements useful to formulate a valid theory for the origin of symbolic culture.\n\nWhat exactly is the Rainbow Snake? Is it possible to lessen its complex features into formal description? An attempt to describe its constantly evolving features would be useful; moreover, given the fact that the Serpent symbology is present almost in any continent, culture and religion (African, Amerindian, Australian, Aztec, Chinese, Christian et cetera) and its features are somehow similar to each other, I will limit the description to a general overview of the serpents' characteristics. Consequently, I shall draw the most relevant attributes and analyse them in light of Aboriginal traditions.\n\nThe existence of a 'divine' Serpent is testable in countless cultures and, it must be pointed out, it embodies various and complex symbols. It is possible to come across male serpents as well as female serpents; moreover, the Rainbow Snake represents a self-generating creature since snakes' skin is seasonally shed. The skin, seasonally shed symbolises a ritualised temporary death, which is followed by rebirth: hence, being the mythical Serpent an essence that has the capacity to die and live again, represent Death itself and Life.\nIconographies of snakes are often characterised by 2 creatures biting each other's tail, or only one serpent, again, in the act of chasing its tail in a perpetual circular motion. Cyclical and seasonal recurrences are in this manner represented. Accepting the fact that the snake is a widespread element in a great number of regions of the world, it is necessary to narrow the argument and focus the attention on the Aboriginal version of the ideology: the Rainbow Snake.\nThe greatest difficulty in attempting to decode the implicit meanings embodied in the Rainbow Serpent "religious structure" (Eliade, in Maddock, K. 1978: 4) is suddenly encountered when we try to translate the various features into language. Because of its nature and its multifaceted meanings we shall indicate, at this moment, the Rainbow Snake (bolung, in Northern Aboriginal Australia's language) as "a being or a class of beings as well as an attribute of certain beings" (Maddock, K. 1978: 117). Moreover, underling the complexity of the terms by which Aboriginals refer to the Rainbow Serpent, Maddock argues that bolung "not only […] refers to a semantic configuration unlike any to which any of our words refers, but is perhaps a result also of its special symbolic function in verbal (and visual) communication" (ibid.). The concept of bolung / Rainbow Snake encloses the maleness symbolism, as it is associated to a phallus (a non-transcendent explanation for the phallic symbolism attributed to bolung, can be seen in the cobra snake, for instance, when it raises its head before attacking); by opposite, the Rainbow Serpent corresponds to femaleness and the whole, wide symbolism circulating around the fertility and life-giving domains. This 'being', does not symbolise snakes in their physical attributes, but contains metaphysical snakes' attributes: the Rainbow Serpent is not a serpent but behaves like other reptiles since it lives in
742685
It is a poem of the mythological history of creation with a theme and message of change.
1126964
Do you understand that this is the SCIENCE section? Where we deal in facts?\n\nDo you understand that you are discussing MYTHOLOGY/FANTASY? That this is has no factual basis?\n\nTry posting this over in the RELIGION or PHILOSOPHy or ARTS secton. You will get a better reposnse.
1033853
Well, I am a believer but I will answer your question anyway---\n\nGod said: “Let us make man in our image.” (Ge 1:26) What a historic pronouncement! And what a singular position in history Adam, the “son of God,” holds—the first human creature! (Lu 3:38) Adam was the crowning glory of God's earthly creative works, not only because of the timing near the close of six creative epochs but, more importantly, because “in God’s image he created him.” (Ge 1:27) This is why the perfect man Adam, and his degenerate offspring to a much lesser degree, possessed mental powers and abilities far superior to all other earthly creatures.\nMade in the likeness of his Grand Creator, Adam had the divine attributes of love, wisdom, justice, and power; hence he possessed a sense of morality involving a conscience, something altogether new in the sphere of earthly life. In the image of God, Adam was to be a global administrator and have in subjection the sea and land creatures and the fowl of the air.\nIt was not necessary for Adam to be a spirit creature, in whole or in part, to possess Godlike qualities. God formed man out of the dust particles of the ground, put in him the force of life so that he became a living soul, and gave him the ability to reflect the image and likeness of his Creator. “The first man is out of the earth and made of dust.” “The first man Adam became a living soul.” (Ge 2:7; 1Co 15:45, 47) That was in the year 4026 B.C.E. It was likely in the fall of the year, for mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time in the autumn around October 1, or at the first new moon of the lunar civil year. \nI hope this helps an unbeliever to believe.
801101
Well common sense, to me it sort of goes like this....\nALL mythology has some sort of real-world counterpart.  What this means is that essentially that all myths contain some sort of universal truth when you strip away the dross.  As far as mythological creatures are concerned, I do believe that some may have definantly existed.  To say things such as ancient mariners thought that manatees were mermaids is a bit presumptuous.  That's making a giant assumption, saying that we know what and how ancient mariners thought, which we obviously cannot know for a fact.  So called mythological creatures are being discovered all the time.  A few years back, a breed of deer was discovered in Asia that was thought to have been a mythological creature.  It was tiny and breathed through the sides of its snout instead of having a nose.  For centuries, science scoffed at its existence, until one day someone caught one...And science looked stupid, as it does so often by down-playing things that don't fit its paradigm.\nThe unicorn was a creature featured in the original painting of the creatures going into Noah's Ark, two by two...I believe that they were probably abundant somewhere in the wrld at one time, but got wiped out as so many species do.\nIN fact, we discover new species of creatures every single day...Fish we thought were extinct, thus becoming the realm of myth....Giant squid, Giant sharks (Aussie Coast), and a plethora of critters that by our own technical and scientific standards shouldn't even exist (all those little critters living along the Mariennes Trench in water that's well over the temperature  that's supposed to support life)....\nIn closing, my answer to you is a YES.  I do believe at one point the so called "mythological" creatures not only existed, but were common as well.  Hit some of the crypto zoology websites and you'll see what I mean about everything I've written....Sites that deal with forbidden history are also a great source of information.\nPEACE!