The stories are all rip offs from earlier Mesopotamian myths that the exiled Jews heard while being held captive in Babylon. Noah = Utnapishtim etc. Hardly the source material for serious archaeological research.[/
i see you have provided no links to back up this contention. that is an assumption of the highest order. it is only based on the theory that nothing was writtendown or spoken of prior to the writings of other cultures.
again this is a fatal error to make and is only given life as it seems toundermine the Bible which leads me to the next point:
it seems that you are willing to give ancient man intelligence and capabilities equal to , if not surpassed, modern man in any area except science and the topic of evolution. there you still cling to some weird sort of superiority over ancient man as if Darwin and his followers are the only ones capable of determing the past history of the universe.
considering the acheivements of those who lived in the far past, it is not hard to extend to them the ability to be 'scientific' as thatfeild of research would have existed and there would have been people interested and smart enough to pursue it.
their observations would have led them to consider many theories of earth's origins and guess what, if we find fossils and skeletons today, that are declared old, it is a sure bet that the ancients would have done the same if evolution was true.
since we have no records of such thinking and we only have records of creation then we know that evolution is not true and creation is the only valid solution to the origin of the world.
Then by your thinking, which is---the gilgamesh record is older so it must be the original and creation not true-- we have the story of creation far older than the theory of evolution thus evolution cannot be true because it is too young and creation must be the original account because it was documented first.
you can't have it both ways. thus evolution is false and creation is true.