The skeptics seem to call anything they don't understand "myth". Yet these so called myths have been repeatedly proven to be fact as shovels of sand unearth the proof. These skeptics are metaphysically challenged and seem to view ANY and ALL religions as a conscious social creation of humans. Right. I wonder if there isn't a kernal of truth to the various "myths" and supernatural stories of humans who originated the "myths" and religions---possibly a visitation from the metaphysical realm (angels, demons, etc) which of course cannot be scientifically reproduced. Hey, if the bible says it, I believe it. It has an amazing track record archaeologically, historically, and prophectically. Alot more statistically significant than that of the so called experts (skeptics).
Actually they haven't; what's happened is that many have been shown to have some portion of truth behind them, but they're generally never precisely correct or completely factual.
For example, it's quite obvious and easily demonstrable that the entire earth has never been flooded with water at the same time, certainly not during the time that humans have existed.
However, It's POSSIBLE that the Biblical flood myth has some origin in a sudden Black Sea flood (that, incidentally, had nothing to do with "Forty Days and Forty Nights" of rainfall or any rainfall at all).
Well, if you can accept there being an invisible man in the sky, I guess we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss minotaurs and snakes with antlers.
And myth doesn't necessarily connote "false." One definition is "truth told in different form."
"Let there be light." or "Subatomic particles cooled enough for photons to escape." could be different ways to say the same thing.