Congratulations on missing the point by several light years, as is typical of mythology fanboys.

Quite simply, every author of every mythology intends for the assertions contained in said mythology to be treated as fact. The authors in question would not bother writing the mythologies they do, if they didn't intend for their assertions to be treated as fact. That's practically the definition of a mythology in proper scholarly circles - a collection of assertions about the world and its contents, that are intended to be treated as fact.

Now that this elementary principle has been laid bare before you, you should be in a position to understand, that your irrelevant remarks are precisely that - irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not the authors of a mythology intended their work to be a scientific treatise, and indeed, I'm aware that most authors of mythologies didn't even have a concept of 'science' when they wrote their mythologies, what matters at bottom, is that they intended all of their assertions to be treated as fact, no matter how much those assertions constituted nothing more than ex recto fabrications.

But when a mythology contains assertions about observable entities and interactions that are demonstrably wrong, then there is no reason for anyone aware of this to treat those assertions as fact. When are you going to learn this elementary lesson?

I don't fucking care what sort of work the authors intended their mythologies to be, whether they intended their mythologies to be historical accounts or ethical narratives or whatever, what I care about, once again, is whether or not the assertions contained therein are correct or not. When are you going to learn this elementary lesson? And, for that matter, the corollary that follows naturally from this, that the moment demonstrable errors are found in such a body of text, its provenance as a purported source of "knowledge" is seriously in doubt from that point on?

And, yet again, as another corollary of the above, I am under NO obligation to treat those mythologies as anything other than mythologies. That, in case you missed this elementary concept, is exactly how I regard those mythologies - AS mythologies. I regard them as what they manifestly are - collections of blind assertions intended to be treated as fact, regardless of how much real world data points and laughs at the notion that those blind assertions are anything other than ex recto fabrications.

As for the nature of any purported "message" contained therein, and assertions about the origin of that message, once again, these are a complete irrelevance with respect to all of the above. Get it into your head once and for all, that I don't fucking care what sort of message is purportedly being delivered, what I care about is whether or not the message is being delivered competently, and in the case of mythologies, that competence is manifestly absent, the moment demonstrable errors appear therein.

Now, are you going to drop this "mischaracterisation" nonsense you keep peddling once and for all in the light of the above?