Like it or not, Genesis does not square with the physical evidence. Now, we can see the quotes in one of several ways: Jesus was speaking literally, in which case He didn't know about the existence of the evidence, and therefore wasn't divine. That's a non-starter, unless you are a Unitarian. Or, Jesus knew about the evidence but was using a reference that He knew His audience would understand, and since He never communicated that He knew the difference, the author of the Gospel never recorded that He knew the difference. This would square more with what we know about the real world, something with which certain folks refuse to become acquainted.
Of course, such reasoning is beyond the capability of some on these threads. Such folks are incapable of reaching a deeper understanding of anything because they are incapable of seeing beyond a surface, literal meaning of words written on a subject. Hence creationists latching onto words like "possibly" in scientific writings. They have never been trained to stretch their reasoning processes, so such processes have become stunted as a result.
this is a prime example of the tendency of some to "spiritualize" a literal event. In the passage, Jesus was refering to a SPECIFIC person (Noah) and a SPECIFIC event (the flood). Jesus was clear here...you just chose to ignore it. If you do that with the entire Bible, it becomes worthless.
Like it or not, Genesis does not square with the physical evidence
Of course, this is not true...evidence abounds of the flood....you just chose to ignore and/or try to fit this evidence into the ridiculous tale of Evolution...a religion that takes much more faith to believe in then Christianity!