I read the Bible the way it was meant to be read, which is sometimes literal, sometimes poetic, sometimes symbolic, sometimes figurative and so on and so forth.
And herein lies the problem of almost every creationist: there are many, many people who read the bible in a very different way than you do (including not taking Genesis literally), yet they, like you, claim to read it in the way it was meant to be read. What evidence do you have that your reading of the bible, including your reading of the flood story, is the correct one? Because to me, "reading the bible the way it was meant to be read" sounds a lot like cherrypicking...
Re: Reading the Bible the way it was meant to be read
I read it the way the Protestant Reformers read it, Sola Scriptura and all that, the way the true believers down the centuries read it.
This is not evidence, this is only shifting the goal posts. Because now you have the problem of defining who is a "true believer". And I am pretty certain that believers who don't take Genesis literally also think that they are true believers.
My evidence that my reading is the right way of reading it is this historical evidence. Thousands of preachers and Christian teachers I've heard and read have taught me how to read it.
Yet there are also thousands of preachers and Christian teachers who taught different ways to read it - they just not taught you. Why are they wrong?