@BruceAlderman Because it's an indication that the myth really did happen. The Bible records the facts about it, while the others are the legends that spawned from it. This is similar to other legends and myths that look like other things in Christianity, like certain characteristics of Jesus. The Bible records the facts, the others are perversions that came from the Bible.

> These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided.

> The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record) Source

I'm not a YEC, as you know, but this is their thought process. Also, I just ran into this recently in an online course I'm taking. One of the other students in my class insisted that the Bible's story is older than Gilgamesh's, pretty much, "just because", despite the fact that the oldest copies we have of each put's Gilgamesh at a thousand years older.

He said:

> I disagree with your implicit argument that since the earliest version of Gilgamesh we have is older than our earliest versions of the bible, that it was therefore written before the Bible. To me, this makes little to no sense. I understand there are other factors that come into play when certain scholars purport to believe that Gilgamesh was written before the Bible, but honestly I think it's hogwash.

> Simply because there was an older text found does not make it written earlier. It simply means that we have an earlier version of Gilgamesh. I think it's informally fallacious to argue this point.

To which I replied:

> I didn't make any implicit argument. That happens to be the massive consensus among scholars in this field.

Followed by links and a summary of the majority opinion on dating of the two works.

Then he persists:

> I have done somewhat extensive research on this topic and none of them are profound enough to make the claim that gilgamesh was written before genesis. It is simply a matter of opinon.

So you can see, the answer is "The Bible is right; was written first, or at least orally maintained; and all the others are copycats."

It's a legitimate argument, but the evidence does not suggest it.

@fredsbend Then why is it legitimate? If there is no basis for it other than mere assertion, then it is . . . mere assertion. It's not even an argument.