The events of the Bible didn't take place in a vacuum. There was a whole lot more going on in the world at that time, and the Bible is just one group of people's attempt at trying to explain things.
Yes, there was a lot going on, but the Bible makes a claim that God started everything and after that stuff got warped. It's either true or it's not in this claim. I believe all evidence point to it being true over all the other claims. Including modern man's musings about origins, history, etc. to the contrary.
Case in point, the story of a flood has its origins in the Epic of Gilgamesh in Sumer which predates the writing of Genesis.
This is a common misconception. While there are some similarities, emphasis on the some, there are astronomical differences. Also, this assumes that what was written down first came first. Big assumption. While clay tablets are indeed dated older according to man's dating methods, there's no guarantee the things you're bringing up came first. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Case in point, look into the Toledoth theory that the structure of Genesis is written so that it matches up with the styles of writing in Mesopotamia clay tablets thus some theorize that Genesis may have been compiled from clay tablets possibly passed from Adam to Noah to Moses that we no longer accessible to today or haven't been discovered yet.
Even without that physical evidence, God's testimony from Genesis indicates He started all things and then things from there, probably post Tower of Babel, maybe sooner, got skewed. Speaking of which, off the top of my head, there is a good book done by a Christian historian who maps the culture corruption from Babel by Bill Cooper:
Authenticity of the Book of Genesis (which I've mostly read) and additionally,
After the Flood (which I've yet to read). In the latter he primarily traces culture in Europe.
Also, Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees. Basically, he was a Sumerian. Ur was in modern day Iraq, in the cradle of civilization, and it was one of many. There was also Egypt, China, and the Indus valley civilization.
Ok.
There are multiple fields of study that show that this earth is a lot older than 6,000 years, that there was no global flood in 2348 BC, and that there are traces of both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in modern human DNA.
This is where we really disagree and start speaking a different language. Sure, if you accept everything that comes out of current scientific consensus, then sure, you're going to accept an old age of the Earth. I do not. Those musing in science have been wrong before. For instance, the Geocentric model worked at once, and everyone agreed with it until they were shown how wrong they were.
I can go on here about my views of the agenda for those who espoused Old Ages for Earth and for the overwhelming majority who still do. But won't. So, yes, it still baffles me that Christians will favor origin theories heavily espoused by anti-Biblical characters over the Bible's own testimony and in doing so, they go out to seek reasons to diminish the Bible's authority on certain subjects, mainly Genesis.
I go where the evidence leads, and that leads to the truth that this planet is a lot older than what YECs are saying.
What people in the YEC/global flood camp do is try to ramrod 4.6 billion years of earth's history into a mere 6,000 years, and it's no wonder that people don't take it seriously.
Again, speaking different languages here. You think YEC are forcing 4.6 billion years of Earth history into 6,000 years? It makes me suspicious that you don't even look at what they say unlike we do when we look at what Old Earthers say.
They give reasons to believe that the age is young through experimentation, research, etc. Same thing that Old Earthers lean on from a supposedly unbiased scientific community hijacked by philosophical naturalism. Biblical Creationists only start from the Bible rather than human knowledge. And I find their evidence more reasonable, especially when I read anything in scientific journals and can point out the flaws in reasoning, assumptions, etc. that lead to hasty conclusions due to their fervor to hold on to their theories.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But so long as they have a hold on science, they dupe everyone into believing what they say (that hasn't been observed) is true and everyone takes it on faith.