They are Scriptural references, taken from the first chapter of Genesis:
11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. 21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. 23 And the evening and morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
So, yes, the Bible does teach us that God commanded the earth and waters to bring forth and that the earth and waters brought forth as God commanded.
The problem with interpreting Genesis as an allusion to evolution is that it creates a dilemna.
Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that the phrases you point out, are indicative of what you say they are. That would logically infer that "days" is a metaphor for epochs, or great lengths of time. I don't agree with this interpretation, but I can understand how reasonable people might entertain such a notion. The problem lies with the phrase "according to it's/their kind," which, if we continue logically with the principles of our interpretation, would indicate "stasis of form" over the very same long periods of time, and that would contradict our first assumption, common descent, which is an inferred premise derived from the phrases you cite.
I'm sure many people here would disagree with me, and you're free to interpret Genesis as you see fit, but it seems to me that there is no rhyme or reason as to the method of this particular interpretation. It just doesn't make sense, and you have to step in and out of your own logical principles to maintain it.
A literal interpretation however, poses no such contradictions.
In your first reference to “the land producing” stuff, you seemed to be using these verses to support the theory of evolution. These verses actually directly refute that theory, though, as each passage includes the phrase “each one according to its kind.” That specifically says that man had man as offspring, for example, not that man came from some lesser developed species.
Recall how humanity was created: “tThe Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” He didn’t evolve humanity from proto-humans, but from dust *from the ground*. And we reproduced **after our kind**.
I commend you for valuing and referencing Scripture. Please take a close look at the portions you quoted, to confirm whether they support evolution or creation. I contend that biblical and extrabiblical evidence supports creation, not evolution from slime.