[Anton K.]

Anton K,
There is a book that addresses the specific point you are having trouble with, it is called "The Blind Watchmaker" and it indeed addresses the primary concept that people have trouble with when looking at evolution.  Namely, how does complexity arise from simplicity.  It is an excellent book and explains far better and in much greater detail that I could about this very issue.

Tyson, earlier you said:

" Ever hear of the fossil record? Lots and lots of transient fossils are available. Please see any textbook on biology, or any of the writings of Richard Dawkins or Stephen J. Gould.
If the (very strong) evidence of the fossil record does not convince, then nothing I say will convince either.
You seem to be missing the point that for a theory to be valid, the preponderance of ALL available evidence must support it. The fact is that there is NO debate in the scientific community about whether evolution takes place.
Let me put it this way, if you have done much serious reading or research on evolutionary biology, you would see that HUGE amounts of evidence ALL point to the fact of evolution taking place. The fact that this point is even debated means one of 2 things. Either 1) You've not read the material available or 2) You read the material but refuse to accept it for non-scientific/non-logical reasons."

I respect yourpointof view. I just do not quite like the tone of this message. As I said, i believed in evolution before, so i have read some of the material available.
But, as I have demonstrated it here, there ARE SCIENTIFIC and LOGICAL reasons to reject evolution.
Is evidence for creation/against evolution overwhelming? Some think it is, some think the opposite is true.
I just think that it is not right to present persons who believe in creation as illogical, uneducated and non-scientific.


Eg, below is another firmly established fact that IMO speaks for creation:
LIVING FOSSILS
There are many species alive today, fossils of which have turned up millions of years old. The coelacanth was once thought to be extinct. Now 5 foot specimens have been caught off Madagascar and elsewhere.
Practically identical specimens occur in fossils 60 million years old. Leonard Carmichael of the Smithsonian Institution remarked, "It seems unbelievable. Mountain ranges have grown and disappeared.
Oceans have vanished but year after year the coelacanth has remained an example of biological conservatism and stability". Beetles, wasps, ants and dragon flies have fossils millions of years old. In Australia living trees have
been found which have fossils 150 million years old. The discovery is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur still alive on earth, according to the Director to the Royal Botanic Gardens. Recently a 94 million year old mushroom in amber was found, almost identical to the living fungus marasmius. What if multi-million year fossils of nearly all living species should be found? What if living specimens of nearly all fossils should be found?

[nathanm]

Hmmm, this is starting to sound rather silly Anton... anyway...

Like god "Me", doing anything I want to, regardless how it affects other people?

Where did you pull this from?  Nobody has said anything of the sort.  To not believe in god has jack squat to do with how atheists treat other people.  The idea that without god people would be unleashed like a starved pitbull in a chicken pen is ludicrous.  The connection between morals\ethics and theistic beliefs does not exist.  The human race would not have survived long in the days before they invented their gods if they acted in such a brutal and thoughtless manner as you seem to suggest.  People were good to one another before gods and after gods.  People were nasty to each other both before and after gods.  Gods don't enter into it.

Can you guarantee me that some fanatic will not get access to the nuclear weapons and pulls the triger with a smile on his face? Are you sure that what people do to our environment will not affect me/you/tyson/etc)?

I have no idea where you're going with this or what this has to do with the subject at hand.  But I will say that people most likely to "pull the trigger" will have 'god' on their side when they do it.

So there better be God, for then there is at least some hope.

 So god exists because you want him to exist?  Now we're getting somewhere! Ha!  In a way yeah, that is how it works in the mind of the believer.  Doesn't make it true though.  I am not sure what this 'hope' is for, though. (?)

You are such an optimist

Wow, nobody has ever called me an optimist before!  Thanks man!

Just look at the world around you, watch the news!

I don't watch much news.  It is infested with advertising and cunning public relations agendas.  Finding the truth in the news is difficult, but not nearly as difficult in finding truth in religious texts!

I just think that it is not right to present persons who believe in creation as illogical, uneducated and non-scientific.

Well, I can't fathom how else to describe it.  But it is up to the individual how he interprets the connotations of words like "illogical" and "unscientific".  You are lumping a lot of unrelated things together in one big mass here, Anton. Hmmm...

[Anton K.]

OK guys, it is 9 pm here in Tallinn, so i think i better start moving home from the office...
Have a nice weekend, see you on Monday
And i hope i will not be banned from AC because of my beliefs, USA was supposed to be a democratic country?

[Tyson]

OK, I normally don't copy and paste, but the answers to the questions raised here have been well documented elsewhere, so I will simply pass it on:

[Gigantic copy and paste deleted -- borg]

[Anton K.]

Well, I can't fathom how else to describe it.  But it is up to the individual how he interprets the connotations of words like "illogical" and "unscientific".  

OK, i will answer this one before i go home..
Just why people put their opinions so much above other peoples views? Did you read any of the proofs of creation i provided here? Do you want to say that they all are "illogical" and "unscientific"?
Do you want me to give you the list of scientists who believe in a creator? Or you think there are no such scientists, if so, then you are wrong. Are you going to call all of them "illogical" and "unscientific"?
I think we all should learn to choose better words, in order to express our opinions without puttiing down another man's reasonable arguments.
And, Nathanm, you use too much slang

[Tyson]

The above post is in reply to specifics of the fossil record.  The post below is a series of replies to the general theory of evolution:

4.1: The perfection of certain biological structures (especially the human eye) clearly indicates the hand of a designer. REPLY: (i) The human eye is actually quite flawed. The photoreceptors in the eye are embedded upside down in the retina: the photoreceptors face away from the lens, and their blood vessels and bipolar cells (the neurons that attach to the receptors, and convey information from them to the brain) thus rest between the receptors and the lens, causing deficiencies in human vision, including a blind spot in the visual field of each eye caused by the hole where the neurons exit the eye. The squid eye, by contrast, has none of these problems. Are we then to believe that a designer whose crowning creation was the human being made such a serious engineering mistake in the human eye but not in the squid eye? As the title of a Jared Diamond article puts it, "If the creationists are right, God is a squid" (Diamond 1985).

[etc, more deleted -- borg]

[jkarhan1]

I would argue that faith and science are not mutually exclusive.  There are many scientists who find faith/supernatural to be good bedfellows.  And there have been some solid proper research that speak to this.  I have found that well thought out and researched biblical and scientific observation usually support each other. (Ie …earth is round, cycle of water etc.).  Einstine and Pascal seemed to be comfortable with these issues.
 The is a big difference between scientific fact and theory.  Dinosaurs are a fact. We have evidence.  And BTW. I have yet to find where there might be any conflict to dinosaurs and correct biblical understanding.  The issue of evolution is a bit different. And in fact, the the primary proofs of evolution are primarily theological.
The theory if “micro” evolution. Or, speciesation. The adaptation of a species has been well researched and proven.
The theory of “macro” evolution.  Evolution from amino acids or single celled orginism  to species.  Has not been proven. And most of the evidence lies in the direction of (no explaination and conjecture).  In fact the fossils record for the most part shows species just appearing with evolutionary steps.
Science “fact” is a considered a theory that has been tested proved and reproducible.  We have no proven and reproducible evidence of macro evolution.  And the research done on amino acids and DNA are staggeringly pointing to the direction evolution being impossible.

Tyson-thanks for the textbook answers:)  Im at work.  Cant read it now. If you would like me to cut and past some of the scientific info.
Ill see what I can find.

[Tyson]

Of course, the one answer that would completely resolve the faith/science dichotomy that so many people have problems with would be:

"OK, so evolution is the METHOD that explains variation in species, but that method was set in motion by god, and is simply another of god's creations."

In that case, evolution and religion are not at war with each other, but exist in a much more harmonious relationship, ie evolution exists and is valid, but god is the source of evolution.

[Tyson]

It's really pretty inconcievable that evolutionary theory is even in debate at all.  Look at the info above, it is OVERWHELMINLY in favor of evolutionary theory.  If you can read it and simply ignore the info, which is convincing on the face of it, then there is no point in my responding to any other points brought up.

What I am saying is that the evidence FOR evolution is so overwhelming that anyone who refuses to accept it simply cannot be talked to or reasoned with on this subject, and thus I have nothing further to contribute.  Good day all.

[nathanm]

Anton, I think I have been very civil in my replies.  Unfortunately we cannot even agree on the definition of the words used here so let's just drop it.  You haven't shown any "proofs" of anything, just your opinions.  A scientist who believes in god, or even a list of them, is proof of...what?. You act like scientists make stuff up off the top of their heads and command people to believe in it.  That is not the case.  This is all too silly.  I think Tyson had the right idea, there's no point in debating here.  

Also, what slang terms are you referring to?  I could not find any, at least in the recent exchanges with you.  Or am I supposed to believe your claim that I have used too much slang based on faith? (JOKE)

[jkarhan1]

"More often than not religion is founded upon ideas of hatred, intolerance and subjugation
Nathanm"
Nathan- I can only speak to Buddhism and Christianity.  I have yet to come across the teaching or either budda or Jesus Christ that promote hatred, intolerance and subjugation.  I do realize the actions of the ‘followers’ are in question.  
But. If I go to school to be an electrician and come out and then commit myself to painting and never wire a circut.  Am I an electrician?  Can I even call myself and electrician?  Would you agree there is a disconnect? (so to speak)


"still cant understand when idiots use religion for killing-
 -rosconey"
I agree. Idiots. See above. It baffles me.  


"The connection between morals\ethics and theistic beliefs does not exist.
-Nathanm"
One example would be the USA(understand I do not consider the US to be a christian country).  Theistic belief (and other historical documents) provided some of the building blocks of law and constitution.  Most of the founding fathers were either theists/diests or called themselves Christians.  To some extent the morals and ethics of our country evolved from that.  (and on occasion devolved)  
Another example would be a Native American family.  The theistic/spiritual beliefs of the parents mold the moral and ethics of their children. Ie respect/honor for all created things and life.  It is reflected in the way they treat each other and the land.

"Anton, I think I have been very civil in my replies. Unfortunately we cannot even agree on the definition of the words used here so let's just drop it. You haven't shown any "proofs" of anything, just your opinions. A scientist who believes in god, or even a list of them, is proof of...what?. You act like scientists make stuff up off the top of their heads and command people to believe in it. That is not the case. This is all too silly. I think Tyson had the right idea, there's no point in debating here.  
-Nathanm"

Nathanm, Although some of this thread ended up being a debate.  I thought the initial thrust was to “discuss” religion.  Although I may not agree with someones opinion. I still enjoy hearing the other point of view. Unfortunately, these issues usually sidetrack into debate.  This thread (and for that matter this circle) is here to share opinion and information.

Tyson
I appreciate the volume of data. (I will check out “The Blind Watchmaker”.  I am always willing to learn something new. Some of the arguments and observations your author provided were new to me. Most was the same stuff over again.  Some truth mixed with conjecture and opinion.  Once again. One pile of scientific data vs the other pile of scientific data.  A recent National Geographic highlighted the recent findings showing the DNA data was proving wrong the scientific assumptions of what species were related to what.  For the past 12 years or critically reading research I can definitely say that science does evolve.  I have watch theory replace theory with the next newest evidence.  Which may or may not be comforting.  That’s why theory is flighty.  Theory is still theory until it is proven.   I prefer the definition of scientific fact.  Experiments that are tested, proved and reproducible.  And I see no such thing for the creation of life (as postulated by evolutionist)*.  So, it does require “faith” to believe in scientific theory that is not proven and reproducible. Science postulates this all the time. And so does a good comercial.
In the Emergency room I work in we rely on fact.  Things either work or don’t work in saving peoples lives.  I also have put a lot of  time in studying forensic DNA.  Facts don’t lie.  But, at the same time. I have witness the unexplainable. Things that defy the observable and the testable.

Here is one of my curious oddities of evolution:  DNA consists of 3.3 billion rungs of acid base pairs. Of which some are error correcting and redundant.  The argument presented by Tysons arthor point out the flaw in Behe’s work (I don’t discount any scientists work but all have areas of conjecture or weakness. Non of them know it all. However, most of Behe’s work is accurate).  The coding of the human clotting system has some redundancy and backup.
If you had the environment where acid base pairs were to be randomly paired (where and how did this happen? Where all the amino acids come from?).  Every other randomly occurring/provided amino acid would be either left or right handed (or coded).  Right handed amino acids (someone correct me if I’m wrong) are incompatible with life.  Each loci in a DNA codes for a specific protein or enzyme.  Each loci contain 4 to 18 plus sequences.  Just to code one protein or enzyme requires one to several sequences involving many acid/base pairs and would take an extraordinary about of time.  Beginning to multiply that times the other required enzymes and proteins need for one small system of one simple (not so simple) cell.  Theories bound once again.  None have given me a satisfactory answer.
Consider the environment:  Enzymes and proteins are very sensitive to environment.  Heat, cold, radiation, other element that are incompatable with operation. Both oxygen and water are oxidizers.  The proverberal soup doesn’t work. That just begins the short list of variables. Not even considering the random sequencing of the acid base pairs.
And it goes on….
You guys have a nice weekend.

[nathanm]

Theistic belief (and other historical documents) provided some of the building blocks of law and constitution.

Examples?  I'd love to see the theistic "building blocks" of the US Constiitution.

[Anton K.]

If you want to argue about it. I will not. Ive found it usually comes down to my stack of references/books vs your stack of references/books.) It comes down to this.

Jkarhan1 was right when he said this.
Nathanm and Tyson, you are not scientists, neither am I.  So we ourselves are not in the forefront of scientific knowledge, rather we base our opinions / depend on what the others, more qualified in this field, have discovered / investigated. I can see that the arguments of the evolutionists' side sound more convincing to you. Well, it is OK with me.
Whether you like it or not, quite a few respected and well -recognized scientists do not support evolution theory.  But it is your right nonetheless to call all the oponents of evolution / their views silly, unscientific, etc (though is does say quite a bit about you).

There are also other things beyond scientific facts which contradict evolution theory which helped me to become religious person.
From the Bible I learned, that besides physical laws (like the law of gravity Tyson referred to) there are also ethical, moral laws which also cannot be violated without consequencies. And from what i see daily around me, this is the case.
Let us take this well-known law of loving your fellowman. Everyone will agree that if you do not follow this rule, you can not be happy. You will just have no friends, and no happiness is complete without friends / love.
Ok, one does not have to be Christian to follow this particular rule, but other God's laws (about marriage/sexual relations/paying taxes/raising children/etc) act in a similar way. So many people reap the consequencies of their misbehavior (e.g. AIDS/bad family relations/bad health/loss of freedom).  You just cannot violate any of these laws and be happy in the long run. Well, it is possible that you live your life according to these laws without having faith in God. You will be still better off.
But we were also created with a need to worship. It is just that many people satisfy this need in a wrong way. They are still worshippers, but not of God, but of some artist /popstar / favourite team /  money / country, etc. "Right or wrong, this is my country".
People kill each other for these things. The fact, that they call themselves Christian, or commit murder / robbery in the Name of God, will make things only worse for them and does not mean that God appoves any of their deeds.

It is not rare nowadays when people do not care for  their elderly parents. Generally, the society does not think well of such persons. Should not our Creator be held even in a much higher regard?

Somehow (even when being an atheist) i've alway felt that there must be more than just those 70-100 years of our lifespan. Were we really born to this world just to eat, sleep, breed, raise our offsprings and then completely vanish?

It was also interesting for me to learn that God predicted today's low moral standards and Earth poluting (2 Tim 3:1-5 and Revelation 11:eighteen).

I just joined relatively late to this discussion, letting non-believers to present their views, so I felt appropriate to make a kind of short overview of my reasons to believe.
You are welcome to have fun on my account, though.
Cheers!

[Tbadder1]

I don't think you've proved any thing, Anton.  You've merely espoused your beliefs, which is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it is ineffectual reasoning.

Moral laws were man-made, constructions of the human mind.  Is it easier to believe that "Thou shalt not kill" is a human idea based on experience and reason, or that humans were too ignorant to figure it out themselves and some divinty enscribed it on some stone tablet and gave it to a guy who liked to hang out on mountains?

And yes, even though there is moral law, we don't pay attention to it.  So what?  It only proves are imperfection, which no one is ever gonna argue with.  I want to know why a perfect creature creates something so flawed. I want my money back.  Unless he/she/it just enjoys the ride we've been put upon.  If we are God's creation, and he made us limited, then he's as responsible and immoral as we are.

And what about consequences.  The claim that we are resonsible for our own unhappiness is exactly half the picture.  What about others who are responsible for our unhappiness.  I did nothing immoral to lose my health insurance, someone decided they'd be better off if I didn't have any.  The baby born with AIDs isn't responsible.  I'm not the idiot who voted for a politician that throws away money, gets our boys killed, sticks it to the middle class and lower class.  Yet I've got to accept this?  Not in a world that makes sense. Now if you want to say that the world is pathetic and sad and irrational and that God is partially responsible for this failed experiment--well then, I'm just going to get all warm and fuzzy inside.  HERE'S TO THE EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE!

[nathanm]

I want to know why a perfect creature creates something so flawed. I want my money back. Unless he/she/it just enjoys the ride we've been put upon. If we are God's creation, and he made us limited, then he's as responsible and immoral as we are.

If God made man in His own image we can only assume that God got sick and died a LONG time ago.  What a bummer.  He should've created men in a more idealized form!  I mean, if I went outside right now the way God made me, I would get hypothermia and die in short order.  What kind of a crummy creation is that?  Humans are rather fragile.  We've got these soft mushy bodies laid down over a relatively brittle bone sctructure that can't take much abuse without serious damage.  A truly godlike creature would be nearly invincible and be able to say, endure a 100mph car crash without major damage.  Again, this is just my opinion -- I am not one of those people who have been gifted with knowing God's mind and purposes.

Somehow (even when being an atheist) i've alway felt that there must be more than just those 70-100 years of our lifespan. Were we really born to this world just to eat, sleep, breed, raise our offsprings and then completely vanish?

Well, it certainly seems that way.  Has anyone experienced anything to the contrary?  Anyone ever get visited by their dead grandmother who revealed the secrets of heaven?  If there is a heaven it must be pretty great, cause nobody ever feels like going back to earth to report on it.  I figure it must be such a treat to be free of the swarm of moronic humans festooned across earth's crust that visiting mortals is unthinkable.

But the facts of mortal life aren't cause for despair nor, if one chooses, cause for believing in religion.  I can understand this thinking - many times I've wondered the same thing.  But I think it is ultimately pointless to worry about an afterlife, especially whilst one is actively participating in the 'beforelife'  

Whether you like it or not, quite a few respected and well -recognized scientists do not support evolution theory. But it is your right nonetheless to call all the oponents of evolution / their views silly, unscientific, etc (though is does say quite a bit about you).

Ummm...I never claimed I was upset by the existence of such people! But could you be more specific about who these scientists are?  Are these the ones promoting various flavors of "creationist science"?  It sounds to me like these are people who are seeking to challenge scientists on their own ground, and seeking to find scientific justifications for the Bible stories.  Is this a correct assumption about who you're talking about Anton?   Because if that's who we're talking about I have no doubt they exist and have earned respect from their peers.  The real question before us now is this: what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

What would you think if I published a book called The Word Of Nate and in it I describe in exact detail the origins of the universe, the fact that I am the creator of this universe who chose a mortal raiment? In this book I will give a list of commandments which my followers must obey lest they end up in the post mortem dungeon of my creation where breakers of my commandments suffer R. Kelly and Puff Daddy tunes for eternity.  What if this book stated plainly that all other faiths are flawed and ficitious.  If such a book existed and my religion gained followers, built churches to worship me and my book would you consider me to be silly, unscientific and unrespectable?

I have much more respect for those who fully embrace their faith, warts and all instead of those who would seek to find justification for what they obviously must think seems ridiculous, (though they would never admit it openly) using scientific theories.  If you want to say scientific research is bullshit and the word of God is true then fine; I applaud your purist approach.  But to be halfassed about it and attempt to reconcile the unreconcilable is laughable and I will have no second thoughts about laughing at, mocking and disrespecting such idiots.  Science is about seeking knowledge, religion already has all the knowledge they need.

[Rob Babcock]

Come now, NathanM, show some respect- it's "P. Diddy" now!   Or "Dip Shitty", or something like that...

[jkarhan1]

Theistic belief (and other historical documents) provided some of the building blocks of law and constitution.

Examples?  I'd love to see the theistic "building blocks" of the US Constiitution.

Interesting that you would pick that one to comment on.  After I posted, I pondered if the US would be a good example.  A little foggy that one.  But, thats what you get when you have only a few minutes on the internet:)  The nature of my life lends little time for surfing.  Enough whining
My point was this.  I do believe theistic belief can mold a societies ethics/morals.  Every major culture we know of was molded by their theistic beliefs both for good and bad.  These theistic beliefs have lead to some of the most horrific atrocities and some of the best things to happen to mankind.  None are without stain or magnificance.  And we could all bring examples to the table.  I would venture that all of us have had our morals/ethics have molded by previous generations theistic (even athestic) beliefs.  
As far as the US:  Washington, Adams, franklin, Jefferson, and Madison have left us with a mixed bag.  I have seen quotes that point strongly towards them at least being diest.  And quotes pointing strongly in the opposite direction.
I think the right balance was best espoused by HG Wells quote regarding the early United states:
Speaking of the independence of the first 13 States, H.G. Wells in his Outline of History, says:
"It was a Western European civilization that had broken free from the last traces of Empire and Christendom; and it had not a vestige of monarchy left, and no State Religion... The absence of any binding religious tie is especially noteworthy. It had a number of forms of Christianity, its spirit was indubitably Christian; but, as a State document of 1796 expicity declared: 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.'"

More interesting was some recent research:
"Our central perspective is that religion affects economic outcomes mainly by fostering religious beliefs that influence individual traits such as honesty, work ethic, thrift, and openness to strangers".  
Barro and McCleary, Americain Sociological Review
"Confucian contries are now the most Protestant countries on earth in terms of a moral imperative to work hard, save money, to do well," Ronald Inglehart, Political Scientist, University of Michigan. (The New York Times, 11 Jan 2004.)
-  these people are way smarter than me and specialize in political and social science.  The truth is out there.  What I do know is that it is impossible to make broad generalizations about society or religion.

[nathanm]

But we were also created with a need to worship. It is just that many people satisfy this need in a wrong way. They are still worshippers, but not of God, but of some artist /popstar / favourite team / money / country, etc. "Right or wrong, this is my country".
People kill each other for these things. The fact, that they call themselves Christian, or commit murder / robbery in the Name of God, will make things only worse for them and does not mean that God appoves any of their deeds.

Created with a need to worship!?  I come out of the womb thinking, "Oh gee mom, I can't wait to go to CHURCH!"    Worship is taught to people, it doesn't come naturally.  It's an invention designed so that certain humans can have control over other humans.  'Hey folks worship god, but make sure to keep those checks coming while our priests rape your children.'  Even if people did "worship" those things as you suggest, it would make more sense to worship them than god cause, oh I dunno,  THEY'RE REAL!!!  As for what god approves of, well that's quite easy to figure:  whatever the reader wants him to approve of.  Pick a passage, you'll be able to justify anything!

I understand what you're getting at jkarhan. Yes, these things all played a factor.  And understandably so, as these morals and ethical teachings  came from men and their earthly desires and problems.  But specifically speaking the US Constitution has no theistic base at all.  They were smart enough to do their best to sever those ties.  There would be no freedom in a country where religion was forced upon the citizens.  Unfortunately there's plenty of folks fighting against this perfectly logical and sane separation.

This goes back to the morbid desire of most theists to force their B.S. on everyone else.  Since they've chosen to grovel and live on their knees before god why should they sit around and watch free and happy people mock them with their indifference, right?  Let's make everybody as miserable, fearful and guilt-ridden as us!  Yay!  Heaven, here we come!

[Rob Babcock]

I'm not sure about that, Nathan.  I can't think of any nation or culture on Earth that didn't have some type of religion.  We do seem almost 'hardwired' to worship.  Maybe it's that same pack mentality that makes us band together into tribes, states & nations.  But as soon as we figured out how to make fire & tools, the next thing we seemed to have created was God.  And he's been notoriously hard to kill off.

If you go back to the earlier hominids, it seems that at the very latest, by Neanderthal times we already had idols and objects that most experts think are religious icons.  And when we get into the earliest well organized societies ( in Mesopotamia & Africa, as well as Asia) we see religion already well established.  The Minoans, the pre-Hellenistic areas that became the Greek states, The Halstat culture, it seems they were already hard at work cranking out pantheon after pantheon of deities.

[Anton K.]

Ummm...I never claimed I was upset by the existence of such people! But could you be more specific about who these scientists are?  Are these the ones promoting various flavors of "creationist science"?  It sounds to me like these are people who are seeking to challenge scientists on their own ground, and seeking to find scientific justifications for the Bible stories.  Is this a correct assumption about who you're talking about Anton?   Because if that's who we're talking about I have no doubt they exist a ...

Nathanm, you wanted me to be more specific?
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Of course this proves nothing to you. As i understand, every scientist who rejects evolution immediately falls into category of those just "seeking to find scientific justifications for the Bible stories". This fits well with what you said in your previous pots: there is Nathan and those who agree with his take on evolution/creation; and there are others, silly, illogical, "seeking to challenge scientists on their own ground".
I can see your point, Nathanm. You think all creation scientists have some hidden agenda. They just so desperately need God that they are ready to do anything to "invent", or perhaps, "re-invent" him. Why? Who cares? Well, may be they will sleep better?

Now try to follow my logic.
Some people did not like the idea of any supreme being above them, stipulating some laws they had to follow. They did not like to follow biblical moral rules. They wanted to do what they wanted to. But as they were quite educated, they felt to be able to justify their desires / deeds. So, dispite all the evidence, they've come up with evolution theory. Now one can do whatever he wants to, the end is the same for all humans (death for ever).
I also agree with you, Nathanm, that we should drop it. Our viewpoints are too far apart.
"Only time will tell" - Mike Oldfield