I must've cut off the last letter of the link, here it is again:

http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/872/nm/Help_I_m_Being_Taught_Evolution_In_My_Earth_Science_Class_/category_id/85?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_content=399941597&utm_campaign=Two+NEW+books+by+Dr.+Kent+Hovind&utm_term=Help!+Order+Now

I'm almost tempted to order it out of curiosity.
I'd love to read the content out to you all, and then we can point and laugh.
Hey, don't get too excited, I said 'almost'.

OUG,
I think GrahamY hit the bulls eye first shot. Both atheist and theist camps/perspectives assume there was an initial something.Their differences lay in the qualities they allow that something.

With regards to Abiogenesis, some have already cited the Stanley Miller experiments which artificially created organic compounds, the building blocks of life.But there is also a different perspective: we often talk of life and non-life as if they were two distinct categories. It would be more accurate to see the two as different ends of a continuum with intermediary forms such as viruses & strange molecules.

Evolution is on a par with Newtons laws: everything that we have examined undergoes change [except some versions of ‘God’]. Darwinian evolution proposes that species change under the influence of environmental forces, there being no morally good, bad or predestined outcomes.

The occurrence of detrimental outcomes –species disappearing –individuals born deformed –the meek being disinherited , would seem to undermine ideas of a master plan directed by a master tradesman.

An excellent insight as to how evolution might work can be seen in some virtual worlds,where a few simple rules played out over many generations produces some very complex outcomes.
http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/october1970.html

the post limit forces me to respond only to selected bits
so i post it in full here
http://www.civilrights.org.nz/forum/index.php?topic=334.0
to reply to ptp
from your link [ptp]
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/jargon/jargonfile_f.html#fallacy

some interesting explanations of meaning
that reveals the teqniques used
in this debate
about evolution

the same teqniques played out here

Abiogenesis
*[FAQ]1.The development of life from non-living systems via natural mechanisms.
2.The early part of evolution(3) that the Second Law of Thermodynamics(2) shows is impossible.
3.Spontaneous generation,which Louis Pasteur showed to be impossible.
.
Ad_hominem_argument
1. An argument which relies upon denigrating the opponent and
then asserting or implying that such an unworthy arguer could not have a valid argument."See fallacy.
Agnostic
(n)1.Someone who defers belief or non-belief in a god until the evidence is in.
#Usually accompanied by the assertion that the evidence is not in.
Argument;from_Authority
(np)1.An argument of the form "the proposition X must be true
because Y,a recognized authority,says it is true,"as a substitute for actual evaluation of X...
...4.Absolute,incontrovertible evidence for the truth of X,provided Y is not the majority
Argument;from_Ignorance
1.An argument which arrogates omniscience to the arguer,
who claims that because he or she cannot postulate a mechanism for a phenomenon
that such mechanism can exist.#[or cannot be proven to egsist
[egsactly the point of these posts]
(np) 1. The argument that what one says is self-evidently, irrefutably true,and therefore one need provide no supporting evidence.
[or claims the supporting evidence but dosnt present it]
Often combined with Argumentum ad CAPSLOCK,and/or as the opening shot in a round of A rgumentum ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam.
Argument;um_ad_Assertion Repetitio_ad_Nauseam
(np) 1. Argument premised on the basis that any assertion repeated often enough is,perforce,true.
This rhetorical mode is a frequent companion of Argumentum ad CAPSLOCK,or denigrations of correspondents.
There exists great variability in the frequency and timing of the repetitions.
Apatheist
(n)1.One who couldn't care less whether there is a god or not.
Falsifiable
;the theory is thus scientific,although falsified.

Biogenesis is still a mystery. There is much speculation, Hypotheses abound, but the bottom line is this:

WE DON'T KNOW.

It is possible we shall NEVER KNOW.

There are a number of false dichotomies implied in this thread.

(A) If we cannot find an explanation we must accept the God explanation

NOT SO. There are many things we don't know, many we may never know. We are limited beings living on one planet in a universe whose size we cannot grasp. We cannot even know whether our universe is unique or merely one among many.

Some ignorance is simply a fact of life. Our ignorance does not imply the existence of God.

(B) If God exists that proves the koran / bible / other "holy" book must be the "word" of God.

Again, NOT SO. It is quite possible that there is a God AND that all "holy" books are, at best, examples of imaginative writing combined with some historical facts or, at worst, compendia of claptrap.

I want to make this last point clear. Muslims, Christians, etc have ZERO EVIDENCE that their "holy writings" have anything to do with "God" assuming such an entity exists.

OUG (or anyone else), did my last post count for anything?

I mean, if you just get out there and observe the real world you wouldn’t be able to miss the relationships between all manner of organisms, or the differences in organisms of the same species. From those observations it is surely blindingly obvious how evolution happens.

Combine this with direct evidence of changing characteristics in just a few generations in organisms such as feral cats and cane toads, of exactly the sort that you’d expect to increase their chances of survival in the new environments that they have recently invaded.

Also….if it was all part of a master plan, then the master is one hell of a wasteful SOB. He can’t have much regard for life at all. The way he’s got it set up is just incredibly wasteful.

Again from the botanical perspective;

Every pollen grain is a living entity. And yet only one in a million or one in many millions gets to fulfill its purpose of fertilising an embryo.

Every seed is a living entity and yet the same applies – only one in many thousands gets to even germinate, and of those that do become seedlings, only one in many thousands reaches maturity.

Surely an intelligent creator could have come up with a system that is more efficient than that...and that demonstrates a higher regard for life.

Ludwig,

The evidence for evolution is, as you hint, overwhelming. There are only three reasons for rejecting evolution:

--Ideology induced blindness

--Sheer stupidity

--Ignorance.

Ignorance is curable. The other two are not. Learn to live with it