Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught

Uh, no... not really. Your whole approach to it is bad. Here's how you're doing it: "If I assume that Genesis is correct, and that it matches what I think science says, then what do the words have to mean to hold up those assuptions?"Its just bad theology. You're lying to yourself to uphold a delusion. Honesty is the best policy; The ancient jews were not writing about modern cosmology, they were creating their own mythical stories and trying to make sense of the world as they saw it from a bronze-age perspective.And I'm not even an athiest nor a bible basher. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: You are simply unable to accept that the Bible got something wrong.Can you even admit one tiny error anywhere? How about Leviticus saying insects have four legs? Come on, its just a little slip of the tounge, right?You can't, can you? That's gonna be your biggest problem in finding a respectable theology.

Let's assume just for argument that the preference for more than two kingdoms is a choice. Why do bacteria and yeast belong in the plant kingdom? That choice simply cannot be justified. Where did anaerobic organisms belong?

No, it doesn't. You keep qualifying the definition with the addition "first life." Stop adding "life." It does not mean "first life." It means the simplest of vegetation occurring on dry ground.It is not talking about the first proto-cells, which, btw, bacteria are not.So, let's go back over some seventh grade stuff.bacteria are not plants.
The first simple cells were not bacteria.
Plants are not the first forms of life.Got it? I hope so. A measure of intelligence is the ability for an animal to learn and adjust their behavior accordingly.If you don't have the ability to learn, you are in deep shit.

You can SEE what it says as well as I do:"The FIRST sprouts of the Earth"....

Now that is big of you guys, to let us use the science that explains what te Book of Genesis means by referring to the Two Kingdom System.
Apparently you just favor the six kingdom system, but all six have there legitimate place for use as the yellow information inthe legend will confirm.

The Chart below illustrates how the bacteria that first appeared on earth fits into the Plant Kingdom. Its a science thingee some just don't understand: But all that is required here is that the Bible is not wrong in stating thatthe Plant kingdom appeared first, followed by the Animal Kingdom some 200,000 years later, as plants produced the necessary Oxygen the supported their respiratio.

The way the Dialectic works is that You bash the YEC Theist with your science ridiculing which is the Anti-theist that pushes veryone into the Synthesis that is neither your argument against Genesis nor there argument for it.As they realize that I am defending the Bible while telling you that at the moment of the Big Bang, the earth, the sun, the stars, the galaxies, etc were all created as far as the matter for them appearing, but they would take form over billins of years.We know that Genesis was inferring this from the second sentence in Genesis:The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form: Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void: (not yet valid as a sphere- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])

Bullshit.

I can see what it says, as plainly as anyone else.You don't know the difference between "first sprouts of the earth. tender grass, tender herb" and "first life"?

The "scinece thingee" that some people just don't understand?It's called "self correction." It is 2013, not 1893. We don't use science once it is found to be in error.Amazon.com.Plants did not oxygenate the earth, not did they come before animals.

What kind of stupid game are you playing? Your chart does not show any bacteria. I'm a fool for paying this bunk any attention. That folly ends now.

Hold on. I thought that we'd already established that when Genesis talks about water, it means people. But now it means "transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun" as well?And I suppose there may even be instances where it means water.

... but as you suggest, the literary arts do use the figurative concept of flowing through" in regard to a flood of peoples in the Noah story.A search of scrioture will show that this idea of a "flood" of troops or people has been used by the bible writers before, elsewhere.

Cyanobacteria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaScientific classification
Domain: BacteriaPhylum: CyanobacteriaCyanobacteria (/saɪˌnoʊbkˈtɪəriə/), also known as blue-green bacteria, blue-green algae, and Cyanophyta, is a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis.[3] The name "cyanobacteria" comes from the color of the bacteria (Greek: κυανός (kyans) = blue).You are not a fool, since it is important that you try me on all this stuff in order to realize that I have done the homework and doubled checked all these possible criticisms that might show that everything does pan out.
As you follow along and try to "catch me" on making unfounded assertions, I have the opportunity to demonstrate the point of view i have choosen to take on many possible choices that might be available in some case of another.
But it becomes clear that consistently chose the word use and facts that tend to make scripture conform with the Truth. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Ah, I think I see where you've gone wrong.Cyanobacteria are sometimes called "blue-green algae", but they're not actually algae phylogenetically. They're prokaryotes, algae are eukaryotes. Where that chart says "algae" it does not include cyanobacteria according to (a) the people who made the chart (b) any living scientist you care to name. Calling them algae is about on a par with calling a whale a fish.