"I am saying that there is no reliable evidence that animals have ever spoken a human language."
Again, you're making a assumption that is incompatible with the inner discussion. This assumption is that Scripture is not a reliable source of evidence.
You're also making the assumption that something doesn't exist if it cannot be proved by science. That in itself is a statement that cannot be scientifically proven. You're making a philosophical statement about the absolute nature of empiricism (all that exists is that which can be proved empirically through science). You cannot scientifically prove that statement (if you can, please point me to the empirical proof of that statement, otherwise you're proposing a faith/belief amongst others).
This is in addition to two other fallacies: (1) believing something does not exist because science has not proved it to exist (think atoms and germs before their discoveries. It didn't warrant their nonexistence), and (2) That something supernatural (hence the name) is subject to natural explanation. It's like trying to explain Goodness with an experiment of soil composition. Case in point being the creation of the universe and it's interpretation within a text that is revealed divine knowledge.
As to the last point, yes, I am. The discussion is not whether or not the supernatural exists. On that ground any of those individuals can participate, and to a considerable degree. The discussion, however, was whether Genesis is to be taken as a literal historical creation account within this specific tradition (hence the reference to Jesus as possibly authoritative in an interpretation).
If you remain outside of the community in which this is discussed (the monotheistic three), the height of your contribution is "I do not believe in the bible, hence I have no say in whether we take Genesis as a historical occurrence, or myth fabrication." Sure, that's somewhat of a contribution, but it does little to even address the question besides speak of a grander objection. It's like a man posing the question "Should I wear a red or blue shirt," and you responding with "I don't believe in wearing clothes". Sure, your response would be some type of contribution, but it would do little to answer whether your friend should wear red or blue.
The Buddhist and others are as equipped to contribute to the inner-discussion of the historicity of Genesis as the president of Iran is equipped to discuss proper interpretation of the US Constitution. Of course this doesn't mean the president of Iran can't comment on how to interpret the Constitution, but just that it can have little worth in addressing the centrality of the question (thus your attempts to divert the discussion to snakes and an objection to the supernatural).