The lead is meant to summarise the rest of the article. Extra references don't hurt. Why do you have a problem with the scientific view that this story is pure fiction and could not have happened.
The part about the 19th century is purely linked in with it because you keep removing the reference to the current state of science on the matter as "too much". Are you happy to let me put back in the earlier wording that modern science completely refutes the story? Make up your mind what your disagreement is and stick to it. Now it's because the mention of the 19th century. Earlier placement of that reference was just to state what science thought of the matter, but you objected to that as I recall. If you'd leave it how it has been in there numerous times before as simply a statement that science today disproves the whole story: you'd not be making this latest of argument to prevent the view that this story is not at all factual.
The reference you removed was from the BBC, titled "Did Noah really build an ark?". It states in it: "And a flood that engulfed the Earth would have left a signature for geologists - yet none has been found. " and "Geologists have also proved that there is not enough water in the world to cover all the continents, then or now. "
It is a relevant reference if you'd just let the voice of science get a say without constantly trying to minimise that significant view.