Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?

Yes, that evolution is microevolution, not the macro on which the theory is based. For the macro to take place, that E. Coli has to become something that's not E. Coli.My mother is a cath lab techician. She grew up on a dairy farm in central western Oregon, so I don't think she went to church. However, the more she studies life, the more she's convinced that something so complicated like a single cell had the ability to be made. Sure, expiraments have made amino acids from non-living matter, but carry on further. Have they made a cell? Have they actually made life? Evolutionists continue to say that life doesn't need an Intelligant Creator/Designer, yet the smartest people in the world (which I hope are smarter than a bolt of lightning) can't make life! If you show me when an expirament creates cells from non-living matter, then, I might start thinking about possibly getting close to the thought of perhaps, under very strange circumstances, start believing that life didn't need a Creator. Until then, I'll trust and follow God wherever He teaches me.

"Are you saying that we should lie to people?"

No. People keep saying that 'science doesn't know everything.' Now that I finally agree, you guys disagree. Are you saying that science knows everything?A long time ago, J Harlen Bretz made a hypothesis that a massive flood swept through Washington and Oregon. However, people scoffed at his ideas because of their belief in uniformitarianism of geological processes.

However, Joseph Pardee later estimated that a glacial dam failed, releasing Lake Missoula. The flow estimated by him was nine cubic miles per hour, more than the flow of all the rivers in the world, but enough to move boulders. However, the flow might have been ten times the sum of all the rivers.

Now, research confirmed this hypothesis. There is an example of people thinking 'science knows everything', and that geological process is always the same, and suddenly being proven wrong on both aspects.

It's not magic. With God, all things are possible.

"If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10"

I was purposefully overstating the theory. I never expected there to be winged horses.

""man" in the context you put it is the same as "human,""

I meant 'ape'.

"There is no consciousness involved and the plant does not respond directly to the action of the ants"

I never said there was. I'm used to trying to deal with people that need simple explaining of complex (to them) ideas. However, I've changed environments where I should be specific and accurate, with lots of research backing up my work. I'm not used to this, yet.Thanks for the tip