A response to the Genesis story versus the miracle stories

I have no idea how many days the world was created. It depends on what is meant by creation and what each stage is. But I really don't see a need to assume that it was, meaning the biblical description as it is. There are two differences between the creation of the world and the miracles described in the Bible:
1. The description of creation looks and reads like a myth and not like a historical description, even without all the scientific knowledge we have today. It is entirely shrouded in supernatural mystery. From Abraham onwards, the Torah seems to shift to a historical description. The Ramban already writes that the act of Genesis is entirely a secret. When there is a historical description in which miracles appear, it is likely that the intention is to describe a miracle and not a parable. But when there is a description that is entirely of a mythical nature – it is likely to be assumed that it is a parable.
2. Creation in seven days contradicts the facts and not the laws of nature. Science today knows how to give a good description of creation, and it is not similar to what is described in the Torah. On the other hand, miracles contradict the laws of nature and not facts. Think, for example, of someone who comes and tells you that a miracle happened to you this morning that saved you from death. You do not accept his claim because you know it did not happen. This is not because it is a miracle, but because you know it did not happen. Thus, when the Torah tells of the creation of the world, I reject it not because it is a miracle or violates the laws of nature (on the contrary, in my opinion, creation is required by logic), but because the facts teach that it is not true.