>> so I’ll say not.
Incorrectly.
>>Dung is not a living creature, LomanBill
Dung is FILLED with living, and previously living, organisms.
Did it Decay in the garden?
What happened when leaves fell off the trees? Did they only start growing new ones after the fall?
Did it Decay in the garden?
What happened when leaves fell off the trees? Did they only start growing new ones after the fall?
Strange the evo obsession with dung! Funny how the evo tries to apply post-Fall physics to event prior to the Fall!
There's many possibilities - digestion was likely a perfect process before man's sin entered the picture - it's likely that defecation didn't even need to take place! Even if it did, thermodynamic diffusion, a process dictated by the 2nd Law, would not have made it offensive in the air! (Sorry to go there, but such a silly comment deserves a response.)
And of course, leaves didn't fall before the Fall!
OK, I see where your cuteness is heading. No corruption, decay or death. You’re assuming that, by decay, I mean the biological action of bacteria feeding off of vegetable matter, whether digested, or as fallen parts of plants. Remember, no animal matter. They didn’t die.
So, try to think of decay as the decline due to disease (corruption) and the deline of aging, much like an old building is described as decayed. That sort of decay, not bacteria feeding.
To continue, running with this string of suppositions, based upon what is known from Genesis, I’ll suppose bacteria had plant matter and fecal matter to feed off of, in the absence of dead animal matter. In this way, their behavior changed, possibly just opportunistically, after the fall, much as man had to toil to produce food from the ground, plants sprouted thorns ... they were cursed, and is still, LomanBill. All Creation groans in anticipation of liberation from it. You do recall that, don’t you? I’m jumping out of Genesis and into Romans. If you want chapter and verse, I’m sure you’ll let me know.
Does that help you out?