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.
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?
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 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. 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? We're talking about a theory here, not an established fact, so evolution is up for question and is highly questionable at best. Moreso than learning almost any other subject, because you can apply most things you learn. Testable, observable, proveable.
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 so intelligent that it knows when to kick in and gain or lose anything it needs or doesn't need along the way. What a creative force it is. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> And what stage of the proceedings do these half evolved creatures achieve full reproduction if they're still evolving? How would they reproduce if they're things aren't fully in place? Or did it just happen so quickly that we couldn't see it? So how did it happen so quickly if it took billions of years to achieve?...oh ok it happened so slowly we couldn't observe it....what did they do then in the stages of evolution where they did not have fully functioning reproduction systems in order to produce after their own kind and keep things going? Did that mean that billions of years of evolution, they just had amazingly long lives and didn't die until their reproductive system was fully evolved so they could have offspring? The thing is nothing makes any sense if things are not complete, because in order for things to survive and continue, they must reproduce. If they are not evolved fully, they cannot continue and replicate. Even a cell must have the full information in order to replicate. Evolution is utter nonsense when you consider these things. You cannot reproduce with half evolved reproductive systems. There is NOTHING in this world that is not complex in and of itself. A seed is complex and contains all the ingredients for life IMMEDIATELY, there upon planting it and watering it, it simply grows. The ingredients for what it is are there immediately.
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? 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).
