Rome, I think I can add a little here without getting into the fight...grin.

In Genesis, there are two terms used for 'create/form'. The first, 'bara,' can mean either to create something from nothing or to form something from something already pre-existing. The secon is echad. This is completely limited to forming something out of pre-existing materials, which is what we humans do.

Bara is used only three times in Genesis 1 and they are very telling times and may answer your question. Because these times stand in stark contrast to the consistent use of echad every other time, they are worth paying attention to.

The first time is in Genesis 1:1. God created the heavens and the earth.
The second time is in Gensis 1:21, when God creates the great creatures of the sea and the birds of the air.
The third time is in Genesis 1:27, when man is created.

Each of these times the implication is that something has been created from nothing.

In Genesis 1:1, we see the creation from nothing of time, space, and mass. We live in a time/space/mass continuum and to have any two without the third is not possible in this creation.

Then, until day 5, everything is 'formed' -- echad. And this is true. Out of the elements all physical things are formed. The same elements make stars, rocks, ferns, whales, giraffes, and us. It is interesting in Genesis 2 that we are told God FORMED man out of the dust of the ground. The dust was the smallest item known/seen and our bodies are most certainly formed out of the same elements as the dust. The Bible was way ahead of science here.

Look, now, at the second 'bara', on day 5. Although the land and plants are all formed, there is something about the large animals in the sea and the birds which is deserving of 'bara' -- something out of nothing. Now, their bodies are certainly made of the same elements as plants (how else could they eat plants?). But if you cross-reference to verse 30, you will find that the birds have the 'breath of life', or nephesh. This is also translated as 'soul' 'heart' and 'emotions' in the Bible. When I thought about it, I realized that these animals, like the animals on day 6, were capable of individuality, learning, relationships with other species, etc. It seems to be something which can be communicated to the world around through a complex central nervous system. That is not Bible....that is me thinking! Nevertheless, this is when the second 'bara' is used.

The third bara is used when man is created. Now we know that our bodies are not new sorts of things. We were specially created and not evolved, true, but nevertheless, the same elements found in the original creation were used to form us, so that is not 'bara'. We also have the breath of life, or nephesh, indicating individuality, etc. That is not new. That is not the bara. But we are created as something new in that we are made in the likeness of God Himself. What does that mean? If we go to Jesus discussion with the woman at the well in John 4, we find Him telling her that God is Spirit.

We, also, are spirits. We are spirits living temporarily in these bodies, for certainly without these bodies it would be very hard to take dominion over the earth! We are also souls, expressing individuality, the ability to learn, to laugh, to think things through, and certainly to have relationships with things that are not human!

Many people consider the soul and the spirit to be the same. The Bible does not. If you go to Hebrews 4:12, you read this interesting bit:
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing the soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

The Bible, in short, presents man as a tripartate being, also in the image of God in this way, who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The large animals, at least, are bipartate, having body and soul. Only we humans are tripartate, having body, soul, and spirit. Now, as far as bacteria, worms, insects and the like, it appears that although modern biology declares them alive, the Bible does not in terms of having 'breath of life.' They would be considered more in terms like plants, being chemically replicating systems.

It does not matter whether we agree with the Bible in its taxonomic divisions. We have different ones. But the Bible should be accepted or rejected on its own terms, not on terms thrust upon it by pre-existing philosophies.