I believed it was allegorical but none the less Truth at first.
Allegories can be true? I guess in the message they try to send...
But it is refered to and repeated throughout the Bible as factual and historical.
Indeed it is.
In the mean time "mitochondrial Eve" seems to be identified as factual and historical.
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans. Biblical Eve would be the most distant ancestor of all living humans. Even if creationism was absolutely true, these are two different women. Also, the title of mitochondrial Eve is not stable at one individual. Say, for example, that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000 years ago, but a more recent candidate that lived 50,000 years ago only doesn't qualify due to a small island of people not descending from her. If a tsunami were to wipe out that island and kill everyone, then the position of mitochondrial Eve would move to the woman that lived 50,000 years ago, as now she is the most recent common female ancestor of all living humans.
And the tight bottle-neck of the Flood too.
Actually, the only species that reflects experiencing a bottleneck like the one that would result from the biblical flood is the cheetah. They are so genetically similar to each other than any given cheetah can serve as a viable tissue donor to any other cheetah. Obviously, humans and the vast majority of other species don't share that degree of genetic similarity between members of their own species.
In Genesis 10 we find the Table of Nations (after Babel), which turns out to be accurate.
Hmm, I don't recall anything by that name. Would you mind elaborating?
"Junk-DNA" turns out to not to be junk and the evolutionists present a lemur as our ancestor..
Some of it is demonstrably junk, given that we have artificially reactivated some of it to see what it does. Some of these junk sequences would code for things like gills and fins if they had the proper start codons. Obviously, they don't serve a function like that in humans. Also, I don't think that anyone has said that a lemur is a human ancestor. We share ancestors with lemurs, but that shared ancestor in and of itself was not a lemur. Just like we share ancestry with chimpanzees, but we did not evolve from chimpanzees, or you share ancestry with your cousin, but your cousin is not one of your ancestors.
What is so attractive about God not existing?
To most people, not much. People aren't atheists because they find comfort in it or prefer that deities not exist. I'm sure there are some really stupid atheists that use really illogical reasoning behind their atheism, but every crop has its tares.
Would mankind suddenly live in peace?
Nope. I don't think our species will ever remain indefinitely in a state of peace. I'm not even sure there has ever been a point in human history in which no equivalent of a war was being waged somewhere by our species.
Can we make up for the natural decay of the premises for existing at all?
I am not sure what you mean by that. Physical decay is caused by bacteria and other microorganisms. Hypothetically, it is possible that one day in the future, we could have the capacity to preserve biological matter so that it never decays. Oh wait, the preservatives in McDonald's french fries seem like good candidates
...but that's off-topic here.
And i'm sorry i got worked up and cynical in an hostile way today..
You call this hostile? Hahahahahaha XD