It is common amongst New Atheists to suggest that (incuding Michael Sherlock of course) Genesis 1 was heavily plagiarised from the Babylonian Enuma Elish creation narrative. They often do this by citing highly outdated sources such as the 19th century German Assyriologist Friedrich Delitszch (who nonetheless kept to the New Testament, whilst rejecting the Old, claiming that Jesus was not even a Semite, his father was a renowned biblical scholar), whilst ignoring (or quote-mining) more recent scholarship such as Wilfred Lambert, who held that the parallels were truly few (one of the few parallels he stated was the separation of the waters, and I’m not even sure if this is truly one). In any case, the scholarly consensus now rejects Pan-Babylonism, and sees the parallels as overblown. For example, it is now known that Tehom does not derive from the Babylonian Tiamat (which is etymologically impossible). The word Thm is known from earlier 2nd millenium Ugaritic texts.
But the main issue which I have with Panbabylonism (alongside the soft Anti-Semitism contained in it’s central theses), is that whilst parallels may exist between Genesis 1, and the Enuma Elish, they also exist with Egyptian Creation narratives (see here and here), where I would argue that the parallels are much greater. Even the Non-cosmogonic Ugaritic Baal cycle shares a common narrative structure with both Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish, where Baal vanquishes the watery forces of chaos and builds his cosmic dwelling upon Mount Zaphon, just as the Genesis creation narrative ends with God taking rest, (which referred to God taking up residence in his cosmic temple) and Eden is referred to as the mountain of God in Ezekiel 28.
The point being is that there is no reason to assume that the writer of Genesis pilfered their ideas from elsewhere, given as these ideas were most likely already ingrained in their minds, just as they were ingrained in the minds of ‘all’ ANE people.