What about the fact that the order of creation is also in disagreement with the evidence of nature? The earth and plants comes before the Sun even though the Sun is necessary for plants to exist? I agree that no one saw it happen, so maybe we should believe what the evidence of nature signifies rather than a story that was written by men and reflects the (lack of) scientific understanding of the time.
It’s funny how as our ability to record and validate events became greater, god(s) decided to perform fewer and fewer miracles. Similar to how the technology used in alien abductions has always stayed just beyond the reach of the technology of the time. First they’d land in your field and drag you into their ship. Once we had planes and radar they would beam you into their ship parked in low earth orbit where we can’t see with radar. Once we had orbiting telescopes that can “see” in the whole EM spectrum they turned into interdimensional beings that would simply beam you into their dimension. Seem suspicious?
Also similar how all the apologist arguments stating that the creation stories of different religions *actually* say what science says. E.g. “Let there be light” refers to the big bang. If that were the case and ancient texts contain statements about nature that science has since validated, why didn’t holy men make these claims before the scientist? It almost seems as though scripture is vague and (mis)interpreted any way people see fit.
A much safer way to gain knowledge about reality and our place in it is to stick to what we have direct and indirect evidence of. Third-person accounts expaining events from past millenia do not constitute direct or indirect evidence.