I would wonder about a reading comprehension problem, if it were anyone else.
Just for the record...
Is Ken Ham right or wrong in thinking that evolution entails inanimate rocks (non-life) evolving into animate (living) beings?
Ken Ham is wrong. Rocks are not alive and lack the ability to reproduce and evolve. However, the minerals found in rocks are used by living things to build their bodies, and living things have the ability to pass on their genes to successive generations through the reproductive process. Living things also have the ability to evolve, i.e. the genetic makeup of populations of living things can change over time through natural processes and alter the physical structure of the organism. The changes themselves are usually filtered through the process of natural selection, i.e. changes in the organism's genome that increase the fitness of the organism have a higher probability of spreading through the population over successive generations. Did you really not know this?
The more likely scenario is that you do understand what biological evolution is, and deliberately chose to ignore this understanding so you could tilt at some invisible windmill that is spinning in your head. You are also likely aware that biological evolution does not directly address the question of how life arose, although our modern understanding of evolution sheds some light on that subject. At this point we don't know how life arose on Earth, but we have some
good ideas. One hypothesis that appears plausible to me is that the first life on Earth was created in or around undersea hydrothermal vents. The chemistry that is used by living cells to power its needs mimics the chemistry found in the environments associated with hydrothermal vents. The energy producing mechanism of the eukaryotic cell is complex and involved with multiple steps, from pushing protons up energy gradients using energy from oxidation of food, a controlled release of the energy via proton waterfalls that drive molecular machines which generate certain chemicals, which are then processed through complex chemical reactions to release energy in a form the cell can use. The complexity is inexplicable in the context of an intelligent design claim, because an intelligent designer worth his salt would have designed a simpler, more efficient system. However, in the context of all life on the planet having evolved from a common ancestor or ancestral pool, which is what our genomes tell us actually happened, the complexity of the process makes sense.
I would also caution you against joining the crusade being waged by Kent Hovind. Kent is the poster boy for stupid on steroids, and even the most brainwashed creationists usually want nothing to do with his stupid on parade freak-show.
