Theistic evolution and the nature of God

[stevevw]

I think this part is where you show how conflicted you are.


You say "evolution" was programmed in from the beginning, and by evolution you are including man descending from lower animals (irony intended), such that they don't reproduce after their kind, but after a different kind, at least every now and then. Am I right? Aren't you, in that statement, defying what God tells us about how He created life:
Genesis 1:12 KJV — And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It depends what produced after their own kind means. I mean all kinds have a similar programmed developmental suite that just repeats body designs across all the animal kingdom. That being 4 limbs sometimes having two arms and legs, a body and head. All having toes of varying types on feet, eyes of vary kinds often common among different kinds but all stemming from the same Blueprint that can vary. Even birds and fish have 4 limbs but instead some are fins and wings. Still with digits like other kinds.

So you could say there is really one kind that varied greatly. But I think you could also say that the different kinds stemmed out of that common Blue print and then became their own seperate kind. That still makes kinds that follow after their own. Really many of the animals and birds stem back to a common type. LIke how all dogs stem back to the Wolf. Even the Wolf and Bear and other similar creatures seem to have similar body plans. The Cambrian period seems to have produced the major body plans we see today.

Genesis 1:21 KJV — And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I can't see a problem with there being one or two original creatures that all fish came from because within those original sea creatures was the Blueprint for all future variations. There must be millions of variations in the sea. I don't think God created every one of these from micro organisms to large sea creatures in one go.

Genesis 1:25 KJV — And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The same with land animals.

Why are we trying to say things from "the worldview of naturalistic processes", if they are clearly wrong in their worldview?

There has to be some natural process. Living things don't just exist in suspended animation. They are not puppets. They need processes that allow them to adapt to the changing environments of the earth. Just because its natural doesn't make it naturalistic in the metaphysical sense that there is no need for a Creator and nature itself becomes the creator.

 

[Job 33:6]

I wonder which Qumran cave they found that diagram in.

ancient near east cosmology is depicted on numerous artifacts dating back to the time of Moses. The tablet of shamash, the Babylonian map of the world, the unfinished kudurru stone, the sarcophagus of Ramses IV, and more.

I'm qumran there are also books like the book of Enoch and jubilees, and the book of the giants, that also attest to this cosmology. Along with the Biblical texts themselves.

 

[Derf]

ancient near east cosmology is depicted on numerous artifacts dating back to the time of Moses. The tablet of shamash, the Babylonian map of the world, the unfinished kudurru stone, the sarcophagus of Ramses IV, and more.

Those seem more like theology than cosmology.

I'm qumran there are also books like the book of Enoch and jubilees, and the book of the giants, that also attest to this cosmology. Along with the Biblical texts themselves.

but not a picture like you showed? So it's a 21st (or 20th?) Century representation of ancient religious texts, including poetry?
Neither sound like something akin to cosmology to me.

Which seems to make it a caricature, rather than an honest attempt to understand the Biblical texts, at least.

 

[Derf]

It depends what produced after their own kind means. I mean all kinds have a similar programmed developmental suite that just repeats body designs across all the animal kingdom. That being 4 limbs sometimes having two arms and legs, a body and head. All having toes of varying types on feet, eyes of vary kinds often common among different kinds but all stemming from the same Blueprint that can vary. Even birds and fish have 4 limbs but instead some are fins and wings. Still with digits like other kinds.

So you want to define the kinds based on number of fingers and toes and limbs? Why? It seems arbitrary. Why not define them based on more comprehensive sets of similar characteristics, like mammary glands and hair and live birth, vs scales and gills and fins and eggs? Or even further, distinguishing between a cat-like and a dog-like creature. What harm does it cause you to have, oh, maybe a few hundred kinds to start with, and still a few hundred kinds today?

So you could say there is really one kind that varied greatly. But I think you could also say that the different kinds stemmed out of that common Blue print and then became their own seperate kind.

You could say all kinds of things, but isnt it our goal as Christians to try to determine what the Bible is telling us, rather than what some scientist is telling us?

That still makes kinds that follow after their own.

Why? Couldn't new kinds spring out at any time?

Really many of the animals and birds stem back to a common type.

So you say. Why should I believe you?

LIke how all dogs stem back to the Wolf. Even the Wolf and Bear and other similar creatures seem to have similar body plans.

But wolves and bears don't have similar body plans with hornets and worms.

The Cambrian period seems to have produced the major body plans we see today.

I can't see a problem with there being one or two original creatures that all fish came from because within those original sea creatures was the Blueprint for all future variations. There must be millions of variations in the sea. I don't think God created every one of these from micro organisms to large sea creatures in one go.

Not all, perhaps, but certainly we could agree that there might be a starfish kind, a shark kind, an octopus kind, a big meaty fish kind, a small bony fish kind, etc., right? And from those kinds descended all the current starfish, shark, octopus, etc. varieties we have today? And those varieties might have been pre-designed into the DNA to produce differences within kinds without one kind producing another, right?

The same with land animals.

There has to be some natural process. Living things don't just exist in suspended animation. They are not puppets. They need processes that allow them to adapt to the changing environments of the earth.

Sure, but just because the earth has different environments doesn't mean a starfish produces an octopus or a shark. Rather one shark produces an adapted shark without violating the scripture.

Not does a man beget a spider, just because he lives in a house with lots of flies.

Just because its natural doesn't make it naturalistic in the metaphysical sense that there is no need for a Creator and nature itself becomes the creator.

Yet that's what the theory of evolution calls for, nature being the creator, and adaptability NOT designed in from the beginning, because that requires forethought, which blind random chance can't have.

 

[Job 33:6]

Those seem more like theology than cosmology.

but not a picture like you showed? So it's a 21st (or 20th?) Century representation of ancient religious texts, including poetry?
Neither sound like something akin to cosmology to me.

Which seems to make it a caricature, rather than an honest attempt to understand the Biblical texts, at least.

The Babylonian map of the world seems more like theology than cosmology? Lol. The artifacts noted all depict what the above diagram does. The above diagram is almost identical to the depictions of the unfinished kudurru stone.

Do you have a problem with people adding color to ancient artifacts?

Circle of the earth:

The solid dome raqia and the waters above:

Three tiered cosmology, heaven, earth, and waters beneath the earth, and it even includes leviathan as well:

Three tiered cosmology. The solid sky dome, the circuit of the sun, the earth, the waters beneath the earth, the dust/Sheol.

A modern drawing with Bible verses that depicts the same. The solid dome raqia and waters above, the circle of the earth, Sheol, and waters beneath the earth. And leviathan.

The Bible of course doesn't contain any drawings. So of course none of the above came out of the Bible. Rather they all depict ancient near east cosmology, the contextual background of the old testament. And that's why the Bible describes all of the above.

 

[stevevw]

So you want to define the kinds based on number of fingers and toes and limbs? Why? It seems arbitrary. Why not define them based on more comprehensive sets of similar characteristics, like mammary glands and hair and live birth, vs scales and gills and fins and eggs? Or even further, distinguishing between a cat-like and a dog-like creature. What harm does it cause you to have, oh, maybe a few hundred kinds to start with, and still a few hundred kinds today?

You can if you want. But even these are common traits across different species. I don't think there needed to be many different kinds to begin with as many are similar in kind having similar body plans that repeat and are not really new creations. For example a cat and dog have similar body plans.

You could say all kinds of things, but isnt it our goal as Christians to try to determine what the Bible is telling us, rather than what some scientist is telling us?

Yes but for different reasons. Science cannot tell us what the BIble is saying because its not talking about science. So just on that point we should not be concerned. But science can and should reveal Gods creation.

Why? Couldn't new kinds spring out at any time?

I don't know. I guess that could happen. But it makes more sense that if God created a Universe that was made for life where the laws of nature play a role in how the universe operates then why not continue those processes in bringing about the earth and the perfect conditions for life.

It just seems if the universe, our planet and life are part of many natural processes that are governing things that this same process is quite capable to bring about life. Planet earth is not life supporting and sustaining by accident. There are many factors that go into making it so and those are the result of other processes which could not have happened unless they happened beforehand which led to our planet being ion a position to have life.

I just think its much more amazing that not only did God create life but he created the processes that create life and they are inherent from the beginning. It sort of gives nature an almost conscious aspect where ultimately 'We' were the aim all along. That is why God created everything so that we could be sitting on planet earth in an infinite universe contemplating God as creator.

So you say. Why should I believe you?

You don't have to believe. I don't think its that important. Whats important is that God created everything. Its a miracle either way because something cannot come from nothing and life cannot come from non life no matter if it was supernaturally created all at once or programmed to be that way.

But wolves and bears don't have similar body plans with hornets and worms.

Yes so they are different kinds. I think you will find that hornots will come from a large number of insects that may stem back to a common kind. But the blue print for those other kinds was there in the DNA. The same with worms and other worm like creatures belong to Annelida. They may consist of 1,000s of species but they mostly have similar body plans for which you could say represented that Kind.

Otherwise are we to say that very similar creatures are each their own Kind sometimes creating a new species which is slightly different but basically the same body plan. Its the old debate about lumpers and splitters. Some want to make new species when it may be a variation within the species of Kind.

Not all, perhaps, but certainly we could agree that there might be a starfish kind, a shark kind, an octopus kind, a big meaty fish kind, a small bony fish kind, etc., right? And from those kinds descended all the current starfish, shark, octopus, etc. varieties we have today? And those varieties might have been pre-designed into the DNA to produce differences within kinds without one kind producing another, right?

Yes. So the DNA is already programming with the environment for variations as a natural process for living on earth. Life including the environment doesn't operate in issolation. They all work together and can have an influence. Environments acting as conduits between organisms sharing genetic info as needed.

I think there is a growing inyterest in Lamarckism as it seems living things have this ability adapt naturally to environments. As though environmental pressures on bodies, tissues, cells activate developmental programs which change phenotypes. Epigenetics is another area of interst. But creatures can also make their own selections, create suitable environments, adopt behaviour that enhances their changes of survival. Like they are in tune with nature rather than passive creatures being acted upon by environments.

Sure, but just because the earth has different environments doesn't mean a starfish produces an octopus or a shark. Rather one shark produces an adapted shark without violating the scripture.

Yes thats right. Star fish and sharks come from different kinds. But a Shark may prrroduce different shaped shark type creatures. Even sting rays fro example. If you notice the similar general makeup. Theres also a bunch of other related fish called chimaeras which sort of look like sharks and are sometimes called ghost sharks. So as you can see it begins to get hard to say what kinds they are or are they variations of the same kind.

Not does a man beget a spider, just because he lives in a house with lots of flies.

Yes once again different kinds. But then notice the vast array of various spiders and insects for that matter. Millions are they all different kinds are many springing from an original kind and were able to change according to environments utilizing the common body plan blue print.

Yet that's what the theory of evolution calls for, nature being the creator, and adaptability NOT designed in from the beginning, because that requires forethought, which blind random chance can't have.

The evidence seems to show that living things are not just passive lumps that are acted upon by outside forces but rather life and the environment are a working network where living things are both constructors or their own evolution and aided by interactions between environments and other living things.

If you look at the main kinds there are only a few body plans which seem to have been there from a very early stage at least in the Cambrian period if not before. Arriving relatively sudden with fully formed body plans that we see today. So really theres not that much new body plans being introduced but rather variations on a small number. Variations on existing traits like eyes such as compound and camera-like eye.

 

[Derf]

The Babylonian map of the world seems more like theology than cosmology? Lol. The artifacts noted all depict what the above diagram does. The above diagram is almost identical to the depictions of the unfinished kudurru stone.

Do you have a problem with people adding color to ancient artifacts?

Circle of the earth:
View attachment 336674
The solid dome raqia and the waters above:
View attachment 336675
Three tiered cosmology, heaven, earth, and waters beneath the earth, and it even includes leviathan as well:
View attachment 336676
Three tiered cosmology. The solid sky dome, the circuit of the sun, the earth, the waters beneath the earth, the dust/Sheol.
View attachment 336677
A modern drawing with Bible verses that depicts the same. The solid dome raqia and waters above, the circle of the earth, Sheol, and waters beneath the earth. And leviathan.
View attachment 336678


The Bible of course doesn't contain any drawings. So of course none of the above came out of the Bible. Rather they all depict ancient near east cosmology, the contextual background of the old testament. And that's why the Bible describes all of the above.

I stand corrected. Sorry for not checking it out all the way before commenting.

Like so much other material, where the Bible has shown itself to be accurate, don't you think it will do so in this as well? Not like the flat earth depiction, which is a caricature imo, but with the waters above the heavens (dark energy), and the stretching out of the heavens (Hubble constant)?

The bible's flood narrative is much more plausible than the Babylonian one, and evidenced throughout the world. I predict the same for the cosmology presented in the bible, though not as depicted in the picture.

 

[Job 33:6]

I stand corrected. Sorry for not checking it out all the way before commenting.

Like so much other material, where the Bible has shown itself to be accurate, don't you think it will do so in this as well? Not like the flat earth depiction, which is a caricature imo, but with the waters above the heavens (dark energy), and the stretching out of the heavens (Hubble constant)?

The bible's flood narrative is much more plausible than the Babylonian one, and evidenced throughout the world. I predict the same for the cosmology presented in the bible, though not as depicted in the picture.

I would say, what is happening here is that the church is suffering from an issue known as "scientific concordism".

It's a hermeneutical conflict where we, being comfortable with modern science, tend to read the Bible in a way that we see things in the text that aren't actually there.

Waters above the heavens for example. We know of dark matter today, so we might expect the Bible to describe things that are matters of our modern culture. Though such an approach assumes that the Biblical authors or their audience, were scientifically advanced like we are.

We could very well just read the text as it is written and conclude that the authors were talking about literal H2O water in the sky. Which was a common ancient near east perspective. The sky is blue after all. And in history, it was thought to literally be made of water, as if it were a heavenly ocean of a sort, in the sky.

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
Genesis 1:6‭-‬9

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Genesis 8:2

If we read the text plainly, we see that God separated waters from waters by creating a raqia in the midst of the waters. An expanse or firmament.

This means that the waters above and below the firmament, are the same kind of waters.

And the waters below the firmament were gathered to form "seas". Therefore the waters above the firmament, are literal H2O waters.

Then we see in Genesis 7:11, the windows of the raqia are opened, releasing the waters above. Then in Genesis 8:2, the windows close, and restrain the water.

And so, reading the waters above to be "dark matter", doesn't align with the text, suggesting that we are suffering from scientific concordism, and we are reading our scientific perspective, backwards, and inserting it into the Bible where the Biblical authors likely never knew or heard of dark matter.

 

[BeyondET]

The problem with evolution as a mechanism for creation is that it requires death to function, which God says is not good. If it's not good, then God would have been lying when He said His completed creation was "very good", when He used death to create it.

Would dead leaves count, since He created the dead leaf mantis to be camouflage like a dead leaf.

 

[Derf]

Would dead leaves count, since He created the dead leaf mantis to be camouflage like a dead leaf.

Did He? Or did He create a Mantis kind that could adapt to a fallen leaf environment once it was available? (Snow and winter might have been new after the flood, so perhaps there wasn't a "fall" until after the fall )

But in answer to your question, leaves are kind of like skin cells. I doubt that they would be called "alive" by themselves.

And in answer to a question you didn't ask, I don't think the possibility of death was absent, but it wasn't a planned event for most things.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure, but leaves rotting isn't the same as trees dying, even if trees would count as life. I don't think there was no possibility of humans or animals dying, but I also don't think God planned for normal dying from old age. Even after the fall, "old age" was much older than it is now. If today's human life span (and animal life span as well) is the original plan, then something was odd at the beginning, don't you think, with men living longer than 900 years?

Adam was not created immortal or to be immortal. Indeed, in Genesis 3, God expresses concern that Adam might become so, and makes sure that he cannot.

 

[Derf]

You can if you want. But even these are common traits across different species. I don't think there needed to be many different kinds to begin with as many are similar in kind having similar body plans that repeat and are not really new creations. For example a cat and dog have similar body plans.

Yes but for different reasons. Science cannot tell us what the BIble is saying because its not talking about science. So just on that point we should not be concerned. But science can and should reveal Gods creation.

I don't know. I guess that could happen. But it makes more sense that if God created a Universe that was made for life where the laws of nature play a role in how the universe operates then why not continue those processes in bringing about the earth and the perfect conditions for life.

It just seems if the universe, our planet and life are part of many natural processes that are governing things that this same process is quite capable to bring about life. Planet earth is not life supporting and sustaining by accident. There are many factors that go into making it so and those are the result of other processes which could not have happened unless they happened beforehand which led to our planet being ion a position to have life.

I just think its much more amazing that not only did God create life but he created the processes that create life and they are inherent from the beginning. It sort of gives nature an almost conscious aspect where ultimately 'We' were the aim all along. That is why God created everything so that we could be sitting on planet earth in an infinite universe contemplating God as creator.

You don't have to believe. I don't think its that important. Whats important is that God created everything. Its a miracle either way because something cannot come from nothing and life cannot come from non life no matter if it was supernaturally created all at once or programmed to be that way.

Yes so they are different kinds. I think you will find that hornots will come from a large number of insects that may stem back to a common kind. But the blue print for those other kinds was there in the DNA. The same with worms and other worm like creatures belong to Annelida. They may consist of 1,000s of species but they mostly have similar body plans for which you could say represented that Kind.

Otherwise are we to say that very similar creatures are each their own Kind sometimes creating a new species which is slightly different but basically the same body plan. Its the old debate about lumpers and splitters. Some want to make new species when it may be a variation within the species of Kind.

Yes. So the DNA is already programming with the environment for variations as a natural process for living on earth. Life including the environment doesn't operate in issolation. They all work together and can have an influence. Environments acting as conduits between organisms sharing genetic info as needed.

I think there is a growing inyterest in Lamarckism as it seems living things have this ability adapt naturally to environments. As though environmental pressures on bodies, tissues, cells activate developmental programs which change phenotypes. Epigenetics is another area of interst. But creatures can also make their own selections, create suitable environments, adopt behaviour that enhances their changes of survival. Like they are in tune with nature rather than passive creatures being acted upon by environments.


Yes thats right. Star fish and sharks come from different kinds. But a Shark may prrroduce different shaped shark type creatures. Even sting rays fro example. If you notice the similar general makeup. Theres also a bunch of other related fish called chimaeras which sort of look like sharks and are sometimes called ghost sharks. So as you can see it begins to get hard to say what kinds they are or are they variations of the same kind.

Yes once again different kinds. But then notice the vast array of various spiders and insects for that matter. Millions are they all different kinds are many springing from an original kind and were able to change according to environments utilizing the common body plan blue print.

The evidence seems to show that living things are not just passive lumps that are acted upon by outside forces but rather life and the environment are a working network where living things are both constructors or their own evolution and aided by interactions between environments and other living things.

If you look at the main kinds there are only a few body plans which seem to have been there from a very early stage at least in the Cambrian period if not before. Arriving relatively sudden with fully formed body plans that we see today. So really theres not that much new body plans being introduced but rather variations on a small number. Variations on existing traits like eyes such as compound and camera-like eye.

How many body plans do you suppose, total?
From Wikipedia:
A body plan, Bauplan (pl German:Baupläne), or ground plan is a set ofmorphological features common to many members of a phylum ofanimals.[1] The vertebrates share one body plan, while invertebrates have many.

So that tells me that Noah only had to take a single vertebrate couple on the ark. Why was the ark so big?

 

[Derf]

Adam was not created immortal or to be immortal. Indeed, in Genesis 3, God expresses concern that Adam might become so, and makes sure that he cannot.

Yes, but that was after he had sinned. If sin and death wasn't part of the plan for him at first, then it became his destiny, then Adam was immortal, then became mortal, then God kept him from the tree that would have made him immortal again, but in a sinful state.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, but that was after he had sinned.

That's not what it says. God said that he would die that day if he sinned by eating from that tree. He did die, but spiritually. We know this because he loved on physically for many years after. And in Genesis 3, God points out that Adam was not immortal, but could become so.

There's no way to add your idea to scripture.

 

[stevevw]

How many body plans do you suppose, total?
From Wikipedia:
A body plan, Bauplan (pl German:Baupläne), or ground plan is a set ofmorphological features common to many members of a phylum ofanimals.[1] The vertebrates share one body plan, while invertebrates have many.

So that tells me that Noah only had to take a single vertebrate couple on the ark. Why was the ark so big?

I am not sure. You could also say that the ark wasn't big enough if they took two of every KInd. But maybe certain animals had to be taken as they were already established and were 'good' as they were. Maybe others like cattle were needed regardless as they were vital for re-establishing the human race.

The question also arise as to what happened to insects, bugs and all those types which may not have survives on the ark. Or aquatic creatures.

 

[Derf]

That's not what it says. God said that he would die that day if he sinned by eating from that tree. He did die, but spiritually. We know this because he loved on physically for many years after. And in Genesis 3, God points out that Adam was not immortal, but could become so.

There's no way to add your idea to scripture.

No need to add anything to scripture. But where do you get the idea that God was talking about "spiritual" death? If we're referring to Genesis, that concept isn't needed or explicit, so why would you feel the need to add it?
He defined exactly what He meant by death:
[Gen 3:19 KJV] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

In Genesis 2, God points out how Adam would die...if he ate of the fruit. The reverse corollary is that he would not die if he didn't eat. Maybe that's not true, but then we see that Adam had access to the other tree. If access to the tree of life would result in immortality after the fall, why would it do less before the fall? The very information you provide that says Adam "could become" immortal after the fall is the very information already provided that he could have been immortal before.

Obviously we aren't talking about a man who cannot die, because eating from the tree of knowledge would cause him to die, according to God, but we are talking about a man who would not die...unless he ate. Growing old wouldn't bring death. Just sin.
[Rom 5:12 KJV] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Does that verse make any sense if death was the end result of life before sin entered the world?

 

[Derf]

I am not sure. You could also say that the ark wasn't big enough if they took two of every KInd.

Are we changing definitions in mid-stream? Are you now saying that body plan is NOT equal to "kind"? Remember, you said that for those who share a body plan (all vertebrates, for example), that reproduce after their "kind", all came from the same initial creature (or couple).

But maybe certain animals had to be taken as they were already established and were 'good' as they were. Maybe others like cattle were needed regardless as they were vital for re-establishing the human race.

But in the scriptures we are told that birds have different kinds (plural), cattle have different kinds (plural), and creeping things (probably reptiles, but maybe including insects and worms) have different kinds (plural). Now, if there were only a single vertebrate kind, based on body plans, and Noah only had to bring in a pair of that single kind (only seven of the clean...wait a sec, how can there be a distinction between clean kinds and unclean kinds if there is only one kind?)

The question also arise as to what happened to insects, bugs and all those types which may not have survives on the ark. Or aquatic creatures.

The size of insects makes them un-noteworthy for determining the size needed for the ark. Especially when you read more of the wiki article (here's the link: Body plan - Wikipedia):

Among the pioneering zoologists, Linnaeus identified two body plans outside the vertebrates; Cuvier identified three; and Haeckel had four, as well as the Protista with eight more, for a total of twelve. For comparison, the number of phyla recognised by modern zoologists has risen to 36.[1]

So, let's add 72 insects/worms to the ark (maybe a few more, as some of them might be "clean animals", and therefore there would be 7). That would take up perhaps a space similar to a chest of drawers, and they would all still be quite comfortable.

Aquatic creatures aren't included:
[Gen 6:20 KJV] Of fowls after their kind (not aquatic), and of cattle after their kind (not aquatic), of every creeping thing of the earth (not aquatic) after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.

This makes sense. Would you protect aquatic creatures from a flood by bringing them on a dry boat??

[Gen 7:22 KJV] All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died. (not aquatic)
[Gen 7:23 KJV] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground (not aquatic), both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

Would you like to admit that your definition of "kind" is not a biblical definition? And therefore, your assertion that body plans all came from a single common ancestor is not a biblical concept?

 

[BeyondET]

Did He? Or did He create a Mantis kind that could adapt to a fallen leaf environment once it was available? (Snow and winter might have been new after the flood, so perhaps there wasn't a "fall" until after the fall )

But in answer to your question, leaves are kind of like skin cells. I doubt that they would be called "alive" by themselves.

And in answer to a question you didn't ask, I don't think the possibility of death was absent, but it wasn't a planned event for most things.

Did I need to put a ? After would dead leaves count. I ask would it count. The notion there wasn't seasons until after the flood is discrediting seasons mentioned in the creation account.

 

[Derf]

Did I need to put a ? After would dead leaves count. I ask would it count.

I'd say no.

The notion there wasn't seasons until after the flood is discrediting seasons mentioned in the creation account.

Have you ever lived in a tropical climate? There are two seasons: rainy and dry. I don't know if that's all they had before the flood, but it's possible. Or it's possible they had season that are different from ours altogether. For instance some think (and I tend to agree with them) that there was no rain before the flood, and that water used to come out from the ground in a mist to water the plants. Such a hydrologic cycle is not like anything we know today.

[Gen 2:5 KJV] And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
[Gen 2:6 KJV] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

[BeyondET]

I'd say no.

Have you ever lived in a tropical climate? There are two seasons: rainy and dry. I don't know if that's all they had before the flood, but it's possible. Or it's possible they had season that are different from ours altogether. For instance some think (and I tend to agree with them) that there was no rain before the flood, and that water used to come out from the ground in a mist to water the plants. Such a hydrologic cycle is not like anything we know today.

[Gen 2:5 KJV] And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
[Gen 2:6 KJV] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

In Genesis 2:5 it says no rain because there was no man to till the ground. People who push the rain after flood is neglecting that statement of no man when it didn't rain.

Two seasons in tropical climate doesn't equal the middle east area. Where the scripture was written. There's different seasons pretty much all over the planet.