This last bit (relativistic dating) isn't really taken seriously, as "reasonable idea" isn't exactly a quantifiable term. Besides, I've read too many reconciliation attempts that try to link fossils in differing layers of rock to a worldwide flood, accounts of which can be found in histories of many cultures worldwide. It's reasonable to imagine that the resulting sediment of such an event might cause layering of plant and animal remains, in which case buoyancy and body density would be much more important "linking" factors in their positioning than geologic epochs.

Of course, one could shoot several holes in this idea. Just from a geology standpoint, it's hard to swallow.

I feel that mankind no longer has a use for religion as a way of explaining the laws of scientific fact. One seems to forget that the Catholic church officially subscribes to evolution now. They see it as a method God uses to create. Most intellectual bishops recognize the the bible is a living document and should not be taken literally. I do not consider myself a religious person or an atheist, as that would be predicated on the idea that I was once religious. I simply do not practice any faith, because what is the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Rig Vedas, or the Sutras but a large book of morality tales that guide society and form a self-propelling morality check. As far as we have come in intellectual thought and scientific research, I feel that the next step in societal evolution will be the shedding of religion as a means of explanation and intellectual guidance in major decisions (such as Prop 8, stem-cell research, abortion, ect.)

In my own honest opinion, I just cannot believe in all that is said about it. Frankly how I believe it was all created was that at first someone made a book about it, and slowly throughout the ages the book slowly had some things added to it slowly like a giant game of telephone.

ehhh a little of this a little of that...

You seem to forget that there are Christians still out there in the world.To us,evolution never happened.God did not use it to create Earth.We did not come from monkeys.We came from Adam and Eve,the first human beings.

Most Christians (atleast most of the Christians I know) accept the story of Adam and Eve to just be a big Metaphor.
If it's not then Adam & Eve's children would have procreated with each other (i.e. incest) and therefore everyone on Earth must be related

Seriously? One couple creates the entire population of the world? Just thinking logically about that statement has some serious flaws. We'd all have died out long ago due to inbreeding.

Ah, the old revelation of one's smallness. But to your question, I propose another question. Why does there have to be a point? What's wrong with pointlessness? Isn't most of the things humans engage in pointless to some extent? 99% of what this generation does will be long forgotten a 100 years into the future. Shouldn't we just breed and live in containers, wear leather clothes that will last us a life time and eat only what we hunt? No! We have made our own purpose, what it accomplishes is besides the point. We have only the present, the future and past are sealed to us, let us use the present then.

To the claim of "the universe seems too perfect to have not been created", I ask another question, We have 9 planets (Pluto is a Planet god damn it!) in this solar system. If the universe is so perfect, why is there life on only one?

Yeah, that's sort of my take on the Bible as a Christian. Everything written in it was by man, and even though there is plenty of truth in it, man is not infallible, and stories like the ones in the beginning of Genesis shouldn't be taken as anything but a metaphor or at best with a grain of salt.

I just read/glanced through this entire topic, and I'm very pleased to see such an intelligent and informative debate on both sides. Well done, TGHers.

And now for me to add a few points:

A) Stephen Hawking is NOT an atheist: He is best classified as an agnostic.

"I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

"It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

A very intelligent and mature approach, no matter what your angle on God/creation is. He is a skeptic, but he acknowledges that his research does not eliminate the possibility of God, and in fact, the concept of God is theoretically very much compatible with it.

B) I believe that DNA is a language/code, and if such is the case, a language/code cannot exist without intelligent creation.

C) Yes, the Hebrew word for day and era is interchangeable. This is one reason why I don't agree with the folks who interpret the Bible in a literal English manner: It's been translated and retranslated a billion gazillion times before it even got to English/American English.

Best of luck to all of you. Belief or no belief, may God bless you.

Just because he states that the existence of a god is plausible doesn't classify him as being agnostic. Any majority of Atheists are open to the idea of a god, all they ask for is proof.
They're not going to believe in a god without some form of solid evidence. Hawking is no different. He stated himself; "I do not believe in a personal God."
When discussing such matters he usually uses the term "god" in a metaphorical sense, and the reasoning behind this is so his theories won't be rejected by Christians or people of other religions.
Basically, all he is saying is "I don't think this is so, but if you do, it's still compatible with the idea. You don't have to be Atheist in order to consider it."
Furthermore, Hawking's definition of a god is not necessarily that of a sentient being. The "god" he is referring to could be anything, even a natural phenomenon such as the Big Bang itself, or something very similar.

According to Dictionary.com, atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God.", or "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". Sounds like reasonable definitions to me--nothing about God having to be a 'personal' God.

Just because he states that the existence of a god is plausible doesn't classify him as being agnostic. Any majority of Atheists are open to the idea of a god, all they ask for is proof.

By definition, that's not what an atheist is. No disrespect intended of course, but I think what you're arguing is essentially a word game.

I suppose I worded that badly. What I intended to say is that what Hawking is calling "god" is not something he believes, himself, to be god, but something others could call a god.
What I'm saying about Atheists is that although we don't believe in the existence of a god, we're open to evidence suggesting such. So far no evidence with conclusive proof has been given. I know for a fact that at least myself and the Atheist community of Austin are, I can't speak for all Atheists. That isn't to say I'm hoping for such proof to come along. Far from it, but if evidence was found, I wouldn't dismiss it straight away until I was able to assess it completely.

Also I think that definition is wrong. It makes Atheism sound like another religion. Which it isn't.

Ah, I see. I respect your views: I will not deny that there is no absolute empirical proof of God, but I find the God "watermark" in things, so to speak, through examination of concepts such as DNA, the redshifting of suns, the Big Bang, and so on and so forth. I found my beliefs in God through science and the study of nature, although not through the scientific method, I suppose you could say. But hey, that's my brain and my conclusions.

I know that Hawking has objected to being labeled an atheist when he has been accused of being one in conversation, but I'm sure it's because he was objecting to the "thinks God can't exist" concept--your approach to the God issue does sound quite similar to Mr. Hawking's, and from a pure skeptical, scientific perspective, perhaps it is the "right" approach.

Whoa... this thread is still alive?

Yenywho, I think just happened is correct. We just ascribe meaning to life through religion to give us comfort and give us more of a purpose than just being an "accident."

And that is the point of religion, to makes us feel like we have answers to questions that could not possibly be answered. Is religion a detriment? To modern progressive thought... yeah, I think so. I think human kind will eventually move past the binds of religion and realize that our own destiny is in our hands. Is religion dangerous? Depends. Scientology is a great example. They use and abuse their constituents then leave them with empty pocket-books. But religions like Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto, and Christianity (and others) have helped build modern civilization and have inspired some of the greatest political and social movements in history, but do we need them now? No, I think we as a world culture have the ability to move beyond religious thought, but we cling onto it because it gives us comfort in "knowing" that somebody is always looking out for us and things happen for a reason. We just aren't ready to take full responsibility for our own lives yet.

Sorry if I sound like a douche.

Sorry to have to bust your chops there Cups, but if there is any proof of God, we cannot have belief in God. If we knew that there was a God, we would have the knowledge of God, not belief in God and there for would render all religions obsolete for the backbone of all religions is faith. (belief) If there was proof there wouldn't be atheists, agnostics or theists.

The biggest merit of being a theist is your faith and that it may go on unchallenged and it's what you are ultimately rewarded for in the afterlife. Asking for proof of a God is a sign of doubt and therefor all theologians and christian people who try to prove the existence of God are undermining themselves.

Iceland, that's exactly what I was implying when I said that, I probably should have made that more clear. As I said last night I probably worded a lot of my argument rather badly.

Whenever I look at how to tackle the whole concept of God and such things, I tend to look back where we all came from, our history.

My biggest example of a misconception of divinity comes from the Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortes' conquest of the Aztec Empire. He and his men were vastly out numbered by neigbouring Aztec tribes and anyone with half a brain would have just Slapped them silly and sacrifice those who survived to the sun god.

But Cortes managed to succeed because the Aztec Emperor, as well as a large number of Aztecs, perceived Cortez and his men as Gods. Why? Well had thunder sticks and rode into battle on demons (I.E Muskets and Horses). This gets me thinking, how often has this happend in the past? How often do you think people have been perceived as a God simply for being better than their peers. Also if you were this person, would you simply correct them or would you relish what people thought of you? Cortes used what others perceived of him to help bring down an Empire.

What about Christ? Christ was a man who if the scriptures are to be believed as incredibly talented, and showed off his talents. Most of his documented exploits were probably exaggerated but it's hard to deny that the man was popular. Could this popularity have created this idea that he was the son of God? Maybe.

Now I wouldn't consider myself to be an Atheist (Nor would I, in my experience they are as close minded as a dedicated believer of any faith) but I wouldn't say that I belive in a God either.

I suppose that makes me Agnostic? If you want to place a label on it then I suppose it's as good as anything.

As is customary in this thread, I'll start of with stating that I am an atheist. I do not believe in any God or an intelligent creator much in the same way I don't believe that Harry Potter, the tooth fairy and Santa exist or ever existed.

The first thing that I think is important to discuss is what 'science' is. Science, in it's most simple terms, works by observing something and trying to find some suitable explanation or 'theory' for the reason of its occurrence. This theory is then tested against other similar observations and predictions are made, those predictions are tested.
This process repeats and repeats and repeats continuously, some scientists comes up with a theory others try to debunk it. They read each others work and they come up with progressively better explanations for certain things (these 'things' range from 'why it rains' to 'what is all this stuff made of'). The scientific way of thinking and analyzing has led us to many great discoveries, for instance we found out why the planets move the way they do, what electricity is, how procreation works, medicine, vaccine, computers and many other things we, today, take for granted. One of these things is the fact that evolution occurs and that it is probably caused by natural selection.

It is very important in any debate about religion, and especially theism, to consider what evolution actually is. A lot of Christians, especially those in America seem to thing that evolution is some sort of theory itself, as if there is a debate amongst scientists on the factual existence of evolution. There is no such debate going on, much in the same way that there is no debate on whether or not things fall down. Things fall down, and life evolves, common ancestry is an observed fact, a fact that demands an explanation. Much in the same way that 'stuff falling down' gave rise to the theory of gravity.

As a small digression: the theory of Newtonian gravity was recently theorized and subsequently proved to be incorrect. This is the way science works.

So what is this 'theory of evolution' that is spoken of? It is actually the theory of natural selection. Natural selection seeks to explain how life evolves, not if. And as far as scientific theories go, natural selection has almost no opposition. Not because of some global scientific religion, but because of the simple fact that no one has come up with a theory that describes the why and the how of evolution better than natural selection does. One rivaling theory is, for instance, that evolution occurs through rather sudden large genetic mutations, in leaps and bounds rather than the smooth process that natural selection proposes, there are however a lot of problems with that theory.

I will leave it at this for now, I hope that it might serve as a basis to continue discussion on.

Law is simply an illusion of physical reality that was willed into being because fragments of compartmentalized consciousness became enticed with limitation. Law is logistical and law equals limitation. This aspect of reality is centered in our left-brain thought processes which deal with things like the mundane, logic, math, and isolation of all things. Right-brain is where emotion, intuition, and spiritual thoughts come from. WE are stuck in left brain, which is what society expects us to use. This is also why WE need tangible evidence that there is a GOD-like figure. GOD is not a mundane concept and can not possibly be understood through scientific logic in totality. GOD can only be understood be exploring the deepest level of OUR being; logic isolates us from exploring that part of us and traps us in limitation through the illusion. We are a part of something much greater than ourselves and we are simply experiencing life in order to understand our true divinity.

Just thought I'd share my "thoughts."