It is true, "the facts remain", but the assertions in points 1-4 don't reflect many facts, mostly just assertions.

Isn't it a bit ironic to label the Bible account of the flood a myth, based on the Gilgamesh myth, which was rediscovered in Nineveh in the 19th century, when the very existence of Nineveh had been labeled a myth by Bible critics until Layard began excavating in 1845? "Science" or "history" had lost track of Nineveh, and the skeptics determined that the Biblical account of the "great city" was mythological. But Layard began producing compelling evidence that the Biblical account was quite accurate afterall. And the library of tablets found in the Nineveh excavation (dating from about the 7th century B.C.) was the source of the reconstructed Gilgamesh epic. Thus, even while finding the Bible historically accurate, skeptics found new reasons to designate it a book of myths and plagiarized myths at that.

The fact is, there is no support for the old notion (only a notion) that the Biblical flood story was borrowed or adapted from Babylonian or Sumerian sources. There is evidence that the inclusion of the flood into the Gilgamesh story itself (which unlike the Biblical account is indeed clearly fanciful and mythological in nature) is a mishmash and adaptation of older Mesopotamian sources dating back to about 1800-2000 B.C. (the time frame of Abraham). There is evidence that Sumerian and Babylonian versions of these stories existed side by side in several variations. All of which lends itself to the idea that there was indeed a catastrophic flood of phenomenal magnitude several generations before Abraham's time. But again, there is no evidence that the Mesopotamian accounts, whether Suemrian or Babylonian, predated or influenced the Hebrew account in any way. Gilgamesh cannot be considered a source for Noah, but the opposite may be true. It is an amazing conclusion, based on nothing but assumption, that if there are pagan myths about anything whatsoever (including death and resurrection) then they must somehow be the source of the Biblical stories describing real people in real historical circumstances. And yet, again and again we find evidence that the Biblical accounts do in fact deal with real people in real historical circumstances.

And about the creationists selling their products, that might be made to seem deplorable if they are preachers of the gospel ("freely you have received, freely give" Matthew 10:8b), but the world of research and publication surely doesn't hold to such a standard. You say that "creationism is a business." Perhaps so. Science is a business. Did you think that "scientists" were altruistic? Perhaps you should read "Bones of Contention" by Roger Lewin (though "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow is a better book, but Lubenow is a creationist, and Lewin is not), or consider the competition for grant money, or generally reassess your understanding of what motivates research and publication by investigating the realities of what drives the science machine. It is not just a business, even in the universities, it is a highly competitive and vitriolic business. You seem to think that "creationists" should be held to a different standard than other "scientists", but then you've already dismissed their scientific integrity from the outset, so perhaps in every respect they are to be held to a different standard than other researchers and thinkers. Recognizing that "billions of years" are far too long from a creationist perspective, and not nearly long enough from a materialistic perspective, they are "pretty silly". Or then again, maybe that fact that it's not all good, doesn't mean that it's all bad.

: Well, Craig, I gandered but I'm not impressed. 'Creationism' is a BUSINESS - just look around that very website and see all the things for sale. The facts remain:

: 1. Both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:4ff are adaptations (polite word for plagiarisms) of pagan myths, from different sources, using different words for God, completely incompatible in the order and manner of creation. The original source material can still be obtained in any good library or bookstore, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, the clearly fictional flood story from which the Biblical flood story was borrowed.

: 2. The account in Genesis 1 is, in spite of all that, amazingly accurate (compared with scientific evidence) if the 'days' are taken as billions of years.

: 3. God reveals Himself through His laws of nature and science. I see God's glory more clearly in one page of a science book than in all of the 'creationist' publications and products combined. Most of the latter are, let's face it, pretty silly.

: 4. Thank God for freedom of religion! So much of the world doesn't have it. If you want to spend your money on nonsense, go for it!