The Bible is a collection of many books, written by many authors, over a few millennia. I have never had any doubt that some of it is genuine history, some of it recorded only 70 years or so after the fact. It would be as if today we wrote down the story if the crash of the Hindenberg, with no pictures, no movies, nothing prior written down, but merely from stories our parents generation told us who witnessed it personally. The story would be fairly accurate, but not perfect, just as the Gospels have slight differences between them.
But what human witnessed the events in Genesis? Obviously, none. Who wrote Genesis? No one has any idea. At best case, one could make the claim that it was inspired by direct revelation from God. All kinds of people have made claims of divine revelation over the centuries. Some might be believable, some are not. The creation account in Genesis, given the massive amount of physical history evident in the earth itself, is not believable.
but only one (genesis is quoted by Jesus numerous times) has ever had the seal of approval by the one who referred to himself as "the truth" that survived the 'test of time'as well as 'well thought out' attempts to exterminate that view. ("I am the way,truth and light"). so the evidence I showed, would suggest the gospels are accurately recorded.
the evidence doesn't change, but the interpretation by fallible and biased man can and does...it all depends on where you start.
you don't accept (I understand that) a priori that God has a motive of humbling man, 'so that none may boast', using what is 'foolish to to humble the wise', 'professing to be wise, they become fools'
'to discover brings glory to men to conceal brings glory to God'. But I do, because this too was given a seal of approval by 'the truth'.
so to suggest that a mass extinction and the evidence there of, happened as described in genesis (almost 100% of land animals dead), is "foolish" according to the world renowned experts, well I would agree (but they still could be wrong). I know that thats not what the experts say, I know they interpret the layers/layering as a timeline, with multiple extinction events, as opposed to catastrophism(sp?) hydrodynamic settling/pressures on an unknown(able)level. and similiarities between groups,dna, etc. . as relational with no 'known' taxonomic limits.
but I do hold out the possiblity that looks can be deceiving esp. if one does not hold firm words and the warning of the one who referred to himself as 'the truth'