If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...

So the idea that just because species are changing due to reproduction means it is logical they could evolve into just about anything given enough time is illogical.

Maybe they can change indefinitely, but that doesn't mean they are capable of infinite change, which was your original point.

You clearly do not understand the basic question. The issue of "decline" is one of immorality, not knowledge. Mankind's consciousness "fell" morally.

Perhaps and most likely this did include a decline in abilities as well, but the point is knowledge alone does not produce godliness.

22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Man's consciousness contained power so much so it was either a threat to God or to himself perhaps that Adam might "live forever" in a fallen state.

But if you cannot even accept that man's actions in the Garden represented a moral fall in his consciousness through his act of rebellion and subsequent awareness of sin (his nakedness), that this is what the Bible teaches whether right or wrong, I've got nothing more to say to you.

Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly....fowl that may fly above the earth..."This was prior to man's creation according to the Bible. So these flying animals were prehistoric since there would be no written history without man.

Jar, there are no contradictions. Show them.

Really, there is nothing in the stories to show a contradiction, and heck, one of the apparent contradictions, the creation of 2 sets of flying creatures, has been cleared up by scientific investigations.

Bishop Sims writes:But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

Even among denominations such as Anglicans, not all agree with your take or the take of the bishop you quoted.

I would argue that most Christians globally accept the harmonious view of Genesis 1 and 2, and thus the "mainstream" agrees with me.