"The ancient Babylonians had a flood story too, and it may have been a corrupted version of the biblical account."
That would certainly be a feat since they had theirs quite a few years before your Babble was concocted. While it's not my area of expertise I'd wager that there are various linguistic/literary/textual clues that point scholars in the right direction when it comes to determining which of such things are the original and which is the derivative work.
"The ark in the Babylonian story was shaped like a cube, which would had made it unseaworthy."
Yeah, no shit. So would a 400 foot long wooden boat with one window be less than sea worthy. Even if it was made out of "gopher wood," unless "gopher wood" is some sort of divine code for "high grade forged steel."
"This shows the difference between truth and badly recorded legends. The Bible's Ark was able to carry all the animals God sent to Noah, it was wonderfully seaworthy, it landed on a mountain that is still identifiable today, and the whole story is credible scientifically."
Really now? Ok, point to the mountain it's on.
"Because of this, there are many thousands of scientists who believe the Bible's account of the Ark and the worldwide Flood, but none (as far as we know) who seriously defends the Babylonian story as scientifically trustworthy."
I'm going to guess that there's very, very few scientists who believe the Ark story. I would guess the number of geologists who would actually be the correct ones to ask, rather than just random "scientists", would be about nil.
