Here is a link about when (modern) science began; less than a thousand years ago properly defined as similar to today's standard science.
In my OP I clearly stated that mythology, IN IT'S OWN TIME thousands of years ago was the common practice for a culture to explain their culture in the format of STORIES (myth). As late as ancient Greece the myths of THOSE TIMES were heralded as the fanciful "facts" of their times. Modern science was indeed brewing amongst the intelectuals, like Euclid and his Greek contemporaries.
I surmised that before those sciences appeared (though not exactly identical with today's scientific procedures but near enough to be called "science") the habits of the ancients scribed stories to tell about their cultural essence in a book of what we, today, call mythology.
I never intimated that those mythologies could compare or compete with science as we know it TODAY.
If that was an interpretation fallacy, then I should have been clearer about my discovery of the mythologies as an apparent so-called "science" of those pre-science days of old. The similarity was suggestive, not conclusive. I tried to EXPAND the concept of science as being in, what I call, an adolescent format of cultures before science proper entered the stage of human affairs about 1000 years ago.
Here is a link (my second attempt) that emphasizes that similarity.
One remains a seed as yet to germinate
And florish. A seed is a potential forest, in due time. What shall one do to begin?