This should be among the top 5 most stupidest young earth creationism claims of all time. Any person knows that leaves do die when Autumn comes and the leaves change color when the days became shorter, the nights longer, and the earth's northern axis faces away from the sun, depleting the leaves of all of the photosynthesis needed for the leaves to maintain their green chlorophyll color. A short time later, the leaves will fall off the trees, lay on the ground, and just decompose to provide food and nutrients for ground growing plants to feed on. Tell that to a creationist, including the likes of religious vegans who run Gentle Ministries, however and you will get a much more stupider response. Get this — creationists claims plants don't die. That's nonsense! How can they not die while they do? Does this mean a wilted plant just come back to life after it has water dumped on it? Get real! Plants do die! They whither, die, and decompose, never to come back to life. Plain and simple. Even the Bible tells us about death among plants as well as animals and humans. If plants don't die, then how did the plant actually die in Jonah 4:7 other than being attacked by a worm? Withering is a form of dying, you know.
However in this pathetically, stupid article from Ken Ham's idiot site, Creationist Michael Todhunter, who claims to be an expert in forest genetics (Seriously, how can he be a major in forest genetics when he doesn't know a dog gone thing he's talking about here?!), claims falsely that plants don't die by starting this article off with,
"Fall in America and throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere is a beautiful time of year. Bright reds, oranges, and yellows rustle in the trees and then blanket the ground as warm weather gives way to winter cold. Many are awed at God’s handiwork as the leaves float to the ground like Heaven’s confetti. But fall may also make us wonder, “Did Adam and Eve ever see such brilliant colors in the Garden of Eden?” Realizing that these plants wither at the end of the growing season may also raise the question, “Did plants die before the Fall of mankind?”
Plants do die! When they're eaten, they die. When they are given too much water, they die. When they dry up due to lack of water, they die (Note how Todhunter is taken Psalms 37:2 out of context to help justify this pathetic plant nonsense. When put in full context, the verse is actually part of 37th Psalm where David tells the readers never to fret over wicked men because they will all whither and die the same way plants whither and die.) When they're given no sunlight, they die— seeds and all. Like all living beings, all plants do have a breath of life in them. They take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen for animals and people to breathe in. Like all living beings, plants do have blood. Other than sap, some plants has a special type of blood called leghemoglobin which is a type of blood protein found in leguminous plants such as soybeans and lentils. Like all living beings, plants die! Even toddlers, preschoolers and kids going to kindergarten know that! This is one of strange cases of creationists not knowing what they are talking about. Especially concerning how plants live, how they are structured, how they breathe, eat (Plants are in fact natural food factories. They make sugar and starch foods they eat from sunlight, rain, and carbon dioxide.), drink (from the roots), reproduce, and die.
This article also claims stupidly that the deaths of plants is much different than the deaths of animals and people, never mind the plants' ability to have the same traits people and animals have concerning breathing, feeding, drinking, reproduction, death, and decay.
This article claims that plants are not what creationists claim to be Nephesh chayyah (Hebrew word for 'soulish creatures with the ability to afflict pain') in them. Neither is fish, invertebrates, reptiles, and insects "Nephesh chayyah", too….or so creationists would like to have you believe. Well, I've got news for him— plants are nephesh creatures in which some are Nephesh chayyah such as the picture plant and the Venus FlyTrap! Let me explain.
The word nephesh according to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary literally means "a breathing creature." Even plants breathe although they don't breath the same way humans and animals breathe. Instead of lungs or gills, plants breathe through stomata, tiny holes underneath the leaves that takes in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen as well as absorb light during the process of photosynthesis which occurs during the daylight hours. They also do the opposite during the process of respiration which occurs both day and night. During respiration, the plant takes in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide. Both process is done through the stomata, the "nose" of the plant. So, you might say that plants were the first nephesh creatures God has ever made before He created 5 more nephesh creatures, fish, birds, wild and tame animals, and man. All organisms are nephesh creatures because they all breathe the air through lungs, gills, or stomata.
The word nephesh also means "a spirit", too which only humans have in them. Nearly every part of the Bible that has the word nephesh in them refers only to humans— spiritual beings created by God who gave mankind a soul. Creationists asserts that plants are not alive in a sense because they don't have a spirit or a nephesh in them. Neither do animals have a "nephesh" in them, but do the creationists care? Nope. They rather ignore the fact that throughout the Bible the word nephesh is used to describe only humans, who are the only beings that possess nephesh in them. This is something that was given exclusively to them by God. Neither animals, nor plants have nepheshim (plural) in them. Obviously this is all imagined up to compromise pagan beliefs that says animals have what the webmaster calls "a spirit, consciousness or soul" and to ignore the fact that most Christians believe that only humans have souls in them, not animals and definitely not plants.
According to one creationist crank explanation, the reason why some animals are "non-living" is because they don't have red blood cells in them(!). Seriously, as mentioned before, this has got to be among the Top 5 creationist stupidities given out of all time — and one of the biggest, pathetic, nonsensical ironies ever come out of a creationists' mouth.
First, creationists say that there was no death before the Fall, yet turn around and say that sharks, whales, lions, T.rex, Velociraptor, and other carnivorous creatures probably can get away with eating only "non-living" animals with no red hemoglobin blood cells in them? Ooh, the irony…
Just because an animal has blue blood doesn't mean they are "not alive." Everyone of those blue-blooded creatures are all living beings just like those with red blood in them. They breathe, they eat, they drink, they grow, they reproduce, and they die. It doesn't matter what kind of blood type they have.
To be frank, Nephesh chayyah is literally used to describe animals that eat meat (that's why the phrase literally mean "soulish creatures that inflict pain"), including wolves, lions, and bears. If God created such creatures, then He must have meant for these animals, along with all other carnivores past and present, to kill and eat meat to begin with. After all, how do creationists and religious vegans explain passages in the Bible where God ordained and instigated carnivory to punish man for his sins? Why are there passages in the Bible where God ordained wild animals to kill and devour men and vice versa? God has put carnivorous animals on this Earth for a reason. They mainly kill animals that eat plants to prevent them from overgrazing the land, to prevent diseases from spreading about, and to maintain a very healthy ecosystem by keeping the population of herbivores under control and give plants a chance to grow and thrive. There is no evil in carnivory. Especially when its clearly established by God.
Nephesh chayyah only is used to describe animals that show feelings, emotions, even pain like dogs, dolphins, monkeys, and above all humans. Plus, the word Nephesh chayyah in every part of the Bible is used exclusively to describe humans. Humans are soulish creatures that indeed have the ability to inflict pain. According to Christian beliefs, animals don't have souls. That trait is given only by God exclusively to the human race, thus making Mankind into a far different animal than the rest of the animal kingdom. Thus, when creationists use such words to further their dogma, they are only compromising themselves with the pagan beliefs that depicts animals to have souls like humans do.
Misusing such words is just an attempt for creationists to work around the problems associated with the no-death-before-the-Fall fallacy. Still, the fallacy is highly riddled with problems.
In the segment entitled A “Very Good” Biological Cycle, Todhunter claims,
"When plants wither or shed leaves, various organisms, including bacteria and fungi, play an active part in recycling plant matter and thus in providing food for man and animals."
That's funny. You creationists usually treat bacteria and fungi as part of The Curse of Sin.
"These decay agents do not appear to be nephesh chayyah and would also have a life cycle as nutrients are reclaimed through this “very good” biological cycle. As the plant withers, it may produce vibrant colors because, as a leaf ceases to function, the chlorophyll degrades, revealing the colors of previously hidden pigments. Since decay involves the breakdown of complex sugars and carbohydrates into simpler nutrients, we see evidence for the Second Law of Thermodynamics before the Fall of mankind. But in the pre-Fall world this process would have been a perfect system, which God described as 'very good.'".
Which means there WAS death and decay before the Fall after all — a perfect form of it! In that case, so much for the no-death-and-decay-before-the-Fall fallacy. So much for the God-would-never-regard-death-and-suffering-as-very-good. So much for the no-Second-Law-of-Thermodynamics-before-the-fall fallacy. So much for the How-can-a-"loving God"-allow-such-death-and-decay fallacy. So much for everything creationists have taught over the years.. *rool eyes*
To help survive as a whole, plants reproduce, sending off their offspring of seed into the world. When plants whither, they die and then decompose, providing their offspring of seed with food, along with good soil, water, and sunlight, to help them grow into new generations of plants that in many cases will be consumed by plant-eating animals who will be consumed by meat-eating animals who will then drop feces on the ground. The feces will then decompose, providing seeds with food to help them grow into a new generation of plants and the whole cycle will start all over again. This is what is called the life cycle, the cycle where plants and animals recycle their nutrients to help sustain all life on earth.
The last part of the article is nothing more than an empty appeal to emotion when Todhunter claims,
"It is conceivable that God withdrew some of His sustaining (restraining) power at the Fall when He said, “Cursed is the ground” (Genesis 3:17), and the augmented Second Law of Thermodynamics resulted in a creation that groans and suffers (Romans 8:22). Furthermore, because of this sin, all of creation, including nephesh chayyah, suffers (Romans 8:19–23)."
Two things: those verses are taken out of context. When put into full context, Genesis 3:17 refers to God cursing Adam to sweat and toil in the fields instead of enjoying easy labor and free meals in the Garden of Eden. It has nothing to do with the entire globe, let alone the entire universe. Also, when put into full context, all the verses from Romans 8 refers to the unsaved, people who never knew or have yet to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with plants, animals, and other forms of non-soulish animals that can't think, reason, have any ideas who or what God is, and can only rely on instinct to survive, unlike the real Nephesh Chayyah who can think, reason, have an idea who God is, and have morals and consciences to survive — humans.
In the conclusion of his article, Todhunter preaches the Gospel of Christ and how one can be reclaimed from death through Christ's death and resurrection just as nutrients from a plant can be recycled into new life. Yet by saying that plants don't die in this article, creationists like Todhunter, is greatly denying the fact that in order for plants to recycle nutrients, they must die. If plants don't die, there will be no recycling of nutrients, no creating new generations of plants, and no renewal of life whatsoever. The same goes double for all other living things. In order to have new life, old organisms must die so that their bodies, along with skin and feces, will decompose to provide nutrients in the soil for seeds to germinate and grow into plants that will serve as food for new generations of organisms who are the offspring of their parents. Had Christ chose not to die, there would have been no being born again, no spiritual revival, and no renewal of life of any kind whatsoever. So like all things that recycle materials, God just had to send His son Jesus to die on the cross and rose up from the dead so that all humans will be reborn upon choosing to be a part of God's People forever. No death, no food, no renewal — no life.