I believe that the creation described in Chapter 1 is consistent with this approach, describes the line not leading to Jesus (and the "daughters of men" in Chapter 6), and the creation describe from Chapter 2 on describes the generations leading to Christ (the "sons of God" in Chapter 6, consistent with the rest of Genesis (more detail in the book).

Holy Scripture tells us in plainly and clearly that God is not the author of death:

"For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living." -Wisdom 1:13 (DR)

Romans 5 tells us that death entered the world through sin. However, St. Paul goes on to tell us plainly and clearly that bondage to "corruption" (or death) is not restricted to humans but that all creatures (or created things including animals) suffer because of the fact that sin and death entered the world through our first parents, and that all created things (or creatures) await for redemption:

"For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope: Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body." -Romans 8:19-23 (DR)

Why does all of creation need to be redeemed if it too is not in a fallen state? Holy Scripture shows us what this redemption will look like for the animals:

"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them. The calf and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall rest together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp: and the weaned child shall thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk...." -Isaiah 11:6-8 (DR)

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together; the lion and the ox shall eat straw; and dust shall be the serpent's food: they shall not hurt nor kill in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord." -Isaiah 65:25 (DR)

Thus, when Jesus returns, all of creation will be redeemed and restored to the original paradise God had created (but even better, if that could be imagined), where death, even animal death, will be obliterated. The reason plants could "die" even before the fall is because they do not contain blood; Holy Scripture tells us that the life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11,14). Thus, creatures such as plants that do not have blood are not alive in the same sense as those that do have blood, according to the reckoning of God, the author of Holy Scripture.

The prevailing assumption of course is that evolution is true. Here we can learn from St. Thomas Aquinas who wrote (quoting Aristotle), "a small error in the beginning becomes a big error later on." What is this big error? Believing that God created through evolution. The Angelic Doctor writes in the Summa Contra Gentiles, "The way that God created the world reveals God's character. A wrong understanding of the way that God created the world reflects a false understanding of God." In other words, how God did things, such as his creative acts, tells us about Him. Believing that God created through the most cruel, pitiless, "survival of the fittest" means imaginable, namely evolution, tells us about God's character. This is the character of an evil God - which is why evolution is a satanic theory. In contrast, we see that God the Son turned water in to wine miraculously and immediately, and did all his other miracles immediately. God the Son's miracles were of the same character and nature as God the Father's, and this is one of the many reasons why those who know God's character can see that evolution is incompatible with reality, because evolution is incompatible with His Holy character.

"It holds that that there was a long period in which natural processes
gave rise to life and to the different life forms on earth."

In one fell swoop they are conflating 'Abiogensis' with 'Evolution'.

After such a fundamental mistake, I am now lost to wondering if tying to read the whole article is worth while?

*Edit*

And I see such very conversation happening in the looong, drawn out conversation bellow.

OK, that was my initial comment here; can you point me toward an article or introduction to that subject, not necessarily a proof but some support? Thanks.

But energy can exist without space time as we know it.

I would not say that I am using science but more like basic assumptions about materialism, that energy is material and cannot exist without space/time.

No, I am saying that you cannot use science (at this juncture) to determine whether or nor the universe had a beginning. Both you and the other poster are trying to use science to show that the universe had a beginning.
I'm not sure what criteria you would use to assume a beginning. Aquinas does note that the beginning of the universe is a matter of faith not philosophy.

Are you saying that science cannot tell us if there was or was not a beginning so we also cannot assume a beginning based upon any other criteria?

What scientists accept is that our current laws break down, when quantum effects become to large. You are not justified in positing a beginning or a transcendent energy creator

I think that energy requires space and time to exist. The universe may be eternal but my understanding is that many scientists accept the existence of a space/time boundary.