QUOTE from Vaux: "And Yaakov, what if there are no rodents to observe the tree? Please don't cite angels."
Why can't I cite Angels? The Talmud, and the Qur'an both cite Angels and Djinn. Angels are made of Light, and Djinn are made of Smokeless Fire. Humans are made of Dust (sometimes translated as Clay).
Your refusal to accept either Djinn or Angels does not speak for their non-existence, but rather, for your own ignorance of their existence. Judaism and Islam acknowledge belief in both. Christianity at least acknowledges belief in Angels and rebellious Angels (Demons), as does Islam. Judaism doesn't accept that idea, hence the lack of belief in Hell. Other religions also cite belief in Angels. Among them are Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, various forms of Hinduism, Yazidis, and other related groups in Iraq and surrounding countries.
The fundamental fact is that a good 90% of the world is theistic. Even the Buddhist world, at least in its Tibetan form, is theistic. To deny the existence of God, to espouse open atheism, is to be a small minority. Although I don't dispute your right to do so, I certainly don't believe that the onus is on me to prove my case. The Ontological Argument has already done that.
I don't accept "Creation Science" any more than Richard Dawkins does. Frankly, I consider it a load of crap. Even assuming I accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis (and I am not so sure that I do), the text never claimed to be a frigging science book. Those who take it as such have their head stuck in their ass, in my own opinion.
But to stop me from mentioning Angels and Djinn just because you yourself do not believe in them is simply absurd. What if a Djinn decided to make its presence known, as they are sometimes known to do?