Quote
Quote
Please provide a quote from a prominent evolutionist biologist, past or present, that says "rocks turn into men".

Read the ongoing descriptions already given linear, Russ has repeated this argument more than once. You will NEVER, I repeat NEVER, find an evolutionist breaking his/her argument down to stating this. Asking for an actual quote admission like this is obviously not going to be found. We need people, who are highly experienced with breaking down the complexity and terminology the evolutionist relies upon to make often quite ludicrous and unlikely claims seem credible and impressive. This is why the ex evolutionist is usually the best ones to do this. They know the tricks of the trade so to speak. The layperson hasn't got a hope in hell of seeing through the smoke screen unless they start studying themselves and hearing the other side. Ex evolutionists and creation scientists are well versed in this and are a great aid to helping us understand what is REALLY being said (in more simplified terms). Once someone comes to grips with the terminology, usually they're a force to be reckoned with when debating evolutionists, and can usually more than match them, so long as they understand their language and can then break it down.
It appears that you believe the geologists, physicists and biologists are all in a type of conspiracy to defraud the people of the Earth. This is not the thread to debate that idea, but I just wondered if that is what you believe.

"Rocks to Men" may actually be an extremely concise way of stating the abiogenesis-evolution process, but it is also misleading and meant to be so. It is a means to take a difficult to understand process and make it seem ridiculous. It is also an ad homonym insinuation that biologists are either stupid or liars. That is why I object to that phraseology. It doesn't debate the topic...it attempts to obscure it.

Quote
Quote
Are you saying that minerals mixed with water cannot become more complex than the elements themselves?

Are you using this as a way of indirectly saying that we're a product of chance random processes...if so how does this prove that? If you mix two different substances together to produce a chemically changed substance, you've proven what? that one and one makes two? .....you needed two different substances to exist in the first place as is, with all original information in order to mix them and create something changed . How is this evolution? Did they evolve by themselves to become more complex?
I agree that the substances have to exist in the first place. Additionally, the properties ("laws") by which they combine also have to exist. Those properties are what makes the possibility of abiogenesis decidedly non-random. Chemical combinations happen because that is the way the universe is. If you believe that those properties and laws were laid down by a Creator, I cannot refute that and do not attempt to do so. However, God putting those properties in place and creating all matter and energy, does not refute evolution or abiogenesis. It just means that God set things up so life would occur.

Quote
Quote
That's good to know. Now I can put my cast iron pot in water and the Fe (iron) in it won't turn into Fe2O3 (rust).

Rust is a corrosive and destructive process from oxidation. We're all rusting as well in a sense. What you really should be saying, to compare the point of the evolution theory is leaving the cast iron pot out there, letting the natural elements get to it and perhaps, over billions of years, with enough time, chance and imagination, it'll turn into the Iron Giant.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
I like your sense of humor. Obviously, no one says that a frying pan will become alive. However, you have iron in your blood so iron is a part of life.

Quote
Quote
I guess all that chemistry I took in college isn't worth the paper it's printed on. When do you plan on presenting your findings to the Nobel committee and collect your million dollars?


If you're attempting to make out that chemistry and science somehow rely on the evolution theory to exist and survive, you're mistaken.
Quite the opposite....abiogenesis, evolution and your remaining alive depend on the properties of the chemicals that make up this world. Chemistry and science explore and provide understanding of those properties but the properties themselves exist whether we define them or not. That is what God, if you will, decided to do at the beginning.

Quote
There is always holes in any findings, any theory and even doctors in all their studies get these wrong too. Many dentists believe that amalgam is safe, do you think that they wasted their time in dental school because they've been taught a fallacy? Do you think it's ok to question things sometimes that you're being taught by the men in white?
I wholeheartedly agree that we should question the established "truths". However, skepticism without investigation doesn't provide solutions or improvement. In the case of amalgams, for example, I'll bet you can provide references to studies done that show mercury toxicity increases in a group of people with amalgams compared to a lack of mercury toxicity increase in a control group without amalgams. I could then read the study, look over the testing protocols and see for myself that amalgams are a hazard. Opponents to evolution don't seem to do any testing or provide evidence in support of their own theories or credible evidence that refutes any part of the theory of evolution. I don't understand why, but typically their "evidence" is poorly documented and their "proof" is really amorphous conjecture that, when looked at closely, is their own incredulity.

Quote
We're talking about a theory here, not an established fact, so evolution is up for question and is highly questionable at best.
The Theory of Evolution is a means of explaining the mechanisms of the changes that caused the diversity of life that we see on Earth today. Part of that theory is the Theory of Common Descent. Populations of organisms evolving has occurred and is occurring today.
Similarly, the Theory of Gravitational Attraction, attempts to explain the mechanisms of masses attraction to each other. Gravity exists whether the theory is correct or not. Evolution occurred whether the theory of how it happened is correct or not.

Quote
Moreso than learning almost any other subject, because you can apply most things you learn. Testable, observable, proveable.
Assuming the theory of relativity is something you accept, how is that testable, observable and provable by your definition of those terms? What about predictability? If I can take 2 chemicals and predict how much of a third chemical will result from combining them, would that also be strong evidence of a theory (call it the theory of chemical combining) being accurate? That is, assuming I made a correct prediction.

Quote
If you look at anything in life, there is the tendency to wind down, deteriorate, rather than improve and evolve. There is nothing new under the sun, just theories which are put across by human beings who are far from infallible and certainly cannot test the origins or answers to the universe and never will. Unless of course they invent a time machine.....(hmm there's another creative word "invent"). Or maybe just hope that mankind will evolve the ability to go back in time....evolution is like that. It's intelligent so it knows when to kick in and gain or lose information along the way. What a creative force it is. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Another joke, and a reference to Ecclesiastes. Solomon had a way with ideas.

Why do you think we cannot test origins? You may not know this but predictions have been made using the Theory of Evolution and they have been shown to be correct in further investigation.

Quote
Why should we trust a product of chance random processes to tell us how the universe began? The universe is governed by laws itself. Was that all unpurposely "pre-programmed" (without direction or intent) in some kind of chance mechanisms/force, that just happened to have all the hallmarks of focus, purpose and intelligence so that life could begin and then be sustained somehow in unison so that it all could be possible in the first place, without actually failing or falling apart. All the ingredients for life, somehow existed already, requiring only a lot of time to produce the result we observe around us today. If that's not the biggest magic trick that ever existed? I don't know what is. No intelligence or imagination required, let chance take over. Because we're the result of such, therefore we should also reflect our beginnings also. It makes little sense that we are creative beings, if we ourselves originally were not created. Where did the word "creature" arise? It comes from the word "Creator". Design - designer. How can we possibly imagine and invent, when if we're not the result of such? How do we evolve abilities if the beginnings of our origins holds no purpose? What is then the point of emotions and abilities, imaginations, if the origins are nothing more than chance forces?
I believe you are saying that abiogenesis and evolution require that there be no God. Why do you think these things must exclude God? Do you think the Theory of Gravitational Attraction excludes God? He is not mentioned in it. The mechanisms don't seem to require Him. Why are you not opposed to that theory?
What about the Germ Theory of Disease? It doesn't mention God or demons. Doesn't this directly contradict the Bible? I may be wrong, so I will do some research. However, if the Bible says that disease is the result of spiritual warfare, why aren't you opposed to the Germ Theory of Disease?

Quote
It makes no sense and the reason it makes no sense is because the theory is swiss cheese. Full of holes, (missing links) filled in by man's own created ideas (funny everything still requires thought and design to start with).
I may be a bit out of touch with your (Hovind's?) pronouncements so I hope you will pardon the question. What are the defining characteristics of a missing link?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke