Noah's ark is the one bible story that pretty much Every person in the free world has a working knowledge of. Assuming you haven't embellished any facts, this article presents profound evidence that the event described in that story really did happen. Then you conclude that the biblical description of said event is "baseless"

I am guessing that English is not your mother tongue, so believe me when I say I'm not a troll. I would ask you to please elaborate on your summary and conclusion a bit more so I can understand where you're coming from.

You say that the Genesis flood story "...suffers from shaky cosmology, Hallucinations and primitive myths," and therefore could not be written by "some serious god."

First of all, no one who believes in the bible thinks that God wrote it. The bible is believed to be inspired by God, yet written from the perspective of men. Also, without typewriters, computers, or any modern scientific knowledge, these writers used common literary devises such as Metaphor, hyperbole, and poetic license to explain complex themes in a way that got the point across, and that people living 3000 years ago could understand. This is precisely why the cosmology is "shaky." Can you imagine just laying it on the ancient commoner how vast the universe is, and that their whole wide world is about the size of a speck of dust on a grain of sand on that scale? It would cause mass panic! The elders would have heart attacks!

Also, the mythology is not primitive. It is portrayed primitively since the authors along with the intended audience were primitive people! The substance of the text is just as relative today as it was over three thousand years ago. That's the opposite of primitive.

In the first chapters of Genesis, God, Just like any good parent would, reveals to us the pith of existence on a level everyone can understand, then leaves it up to us to figure out the details. The two main tools we use to aid us in this task are science and philosophy. In other words, to dismiss the bible because it lacks scientific accuracy is to miss the point completely.

I'm writing this because I care about my fellow man, and believe in skepticism. Being skeptical is what helps protect us from deception. On the other hand, if one's skeptical stance is rooted in an incomplete or false understanding of the thing in question, skepticism could be mistaken for ignorance. I wouldn't want that for myself, and I try to help others when I can.