Neantherdals

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
What if they were around today? They weren't human but they were intelligent, sentient beings. Should we share the planet with them? Did they have souls? If you believe in God, did God see them in the same way as us? Or should we treat them like any other animal for us to dispose of as we wish? Would Neantherdal countries be possible? Did they exist?

Why did they die out? If our ancestors wiped them out, were they right to do so?

Oh, they´re around allright. Just look at the US administration

[Ned]

I think our concepts of who is entiled to be called a sentient being has today taken a real jolt. There is a story running on CNN about Betty the Crow. This crow can fashion tools in order to perform specific tasks. It is said that this is an ability that only humans had - that is 'til today. This shows reasoning, the ability to understand cause and effect.

What happened was that Betty and another crow were given a straight wire and and hooked wire. Only the hooked wire could get the food. One day, Betty's friend had the hooked wire and Betty had the straight wire. Well Betty bent the straight wire into a hook and got the food! She was able to repeat the task of bending the wire 9 times out of 10.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Fine, dont read it then. Your loss.

I don't read lots of stuff. Its not a loss to not have read Dianetics either. I won't lose by not reading Urantia.

It would be better if you were a Creationist than a Urantiast. Then at least you would have some tradition on your side. That is a truly crackpot orginzation.

Some guys get together and write a bunch of stuff and claim from aliens from outer space. The science was often wrong when it was written and now more is provably wrong. There is not evidence to support the book. There is evidence showing its not from people that know more than us.

Here have link to Martin Gardner's book on the Urantiasts.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...327184-4023339

Perhaps thats a book you need to read.

Sample

The term 'channeling' comes to mind, although UB adherents vehemently deny that this was the method used, preferring instead to keep both the method and the human contact a mystery for the sake of mystique. However, Gardner's skeptical nose smells a rat. He reports that a man named Wilfred C. Kellogg, patient and brother-in-law of then psychiatrist William S. Sadler III, was the 'human contact' from whose subconscious the revelations began to emanate.

I see that I guessed right. Both of them Ex-Seventh Day Adventists on top of the rest.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Uh, birds have been filmed using and modifying twigs as tools to did bugs out of cracks in trees nearly 30 years ago. I watched them on a National Geographic show on the Galapogos islands.

[Ethelred]

This bird is doing more. Crows are really bright and that particular breed of crow is particularly inteligent. They use hooks in the wild though so this wasn't all that much of a surprise. In the wild they shape branches and twigs and do a better job than the Galopagos finches. I heard about them a few years ago.

Here is link to the story that Ned was talking about.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe...tty/index.html

Here is another

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020805/020805-9.html

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I don't read lots of stuff. Its not a loss to not have read Dianetics either. I won't lose by not reading Urantia.

Of course, you would know better than me considering youve never read the book and Ive read the whole thing.

It would be better if you were a Creationist than a Urantiast. Then at least you would have some tradition on your side. That is a truly crackpot orginzation.

You have no idea what urantia book readers are like, but apparently they are all "crackpot".

Some guys get together and write a bunch of stuff and claim from aliens from outer space. The science was often wrong when it was written and now more is provably wrong. There is not evidence to support the book. There is evidence showing its not from people that know more than us.

Why dont you show me this "evidence".

If you are at all interested in the science in the Urantia book, you should read this:

http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/ginsss2.htm

Here have link to Martin Gardner's book on the Urantiasts.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...327184-4023339

Perhaps thats a book you need to read.

Perhaps Martin should have actually read the book before writing about it. His book contains outright lies about the urantia book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...010855-5856838

Reviewer: robreno (see more about me) from Renton, WA United States
Half Truths (Suppressed Evidence): Any statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

I agree it is good to debunk bogus pseudo-science. At the same time, I think most people would agree that in any critique being factually accurate, fair, and honest to context is important; and therefore, when quoting, summarizing, and paraphrasing from an original source one should do so accurately, fairly, and in context to assure one does not distort the original sources meaning in any way by adding or subtracting from it.

In Did Adam and Eve Have Navels on page 42 Gardner states (my emphasis):

"On page 1352 of the Urantia Book we learn that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star, which we know it didn't, and this accounts for what the supermortals call the "beautiful legend" that grew up about the "Star.""

Later Gardner refers to the Star of Bethlehem as a legend or beautiful myth, and states on page 44:

"In my not-so-humble opinion, the story of the Star is pure myth, similar to many ancient legends about the miraculous appearance of a star to herald a great event, such as the birth of Caesar, Pythagoras, Krishna (the Hindu savior), and other famous persons and deities."

As the full quotation of the paragraph below shows, this is essentially what the paragraph in question in the Urantia Book is saying; that there was no Star of Bethlehem, it was only a myth, a legend, albeit a beautiful one, and that ancient man was "continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes."

The actual and complete paragraph in the Urantia Book states:

"These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts." (Urantia Book 1352)

Gardner's statement above implies that the Urantia Book claims "the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star..." This is false and a distortion of the actual paragraph's meaning. The first sentence in the paragraph states clearly "These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem." Nowhere in the paragraph in question is it stated that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter gave the appearance of a single star. I searched the online version of the Urantia Book and could find no statement that the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction "gave the appearance of a single star." This appears to indicate that Gardner has misquoted the Urantia Book by adding information that was not in the original source and omitting information, the first sentence of the paragraph in question, which contradicts his own fallacious statement. Gardner then goes on to use his own false statement as a basis upon which to criticize the Urantia Book, by stating "which we know it didn't." I fail to see how this erroneous quotation, which falls short of even minimal accuracy and fairness, furthers the cause of reason or science.

In Gardner's "not-so-humble opinion" the story of the Star of Bethlehem is only a myth similar to many ancient legends about famous persons and deities. This is essentially what the Urantia Book is saying in the paragraph in question, which leads me to ask, why would Gardner overlook this and instead distort the paragraph's meaning by misquoting it and then go on to make the same point? Did he simply repeat the story of some over zealous reader without checking the facts? Whatever the reason, perhaps Gardner should exercise a little more caution by actually reading the source he is quoting, and at a minimum attempt to quote it fairly, accurately, and in context.

Click here for an overview:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/urantia.htm

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

...and I believe him.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Of course, you would know better than me considering youve never read the book and Ive read the whole thing.

I have more sense than to read it. I havn't read the Book of Mormon either but I know enough of it to know it fraudulent. It has some serious errors that the Mormons have not been able to make go away.

You have no idea what urantia book readers are like, but apparently they are all "crackpot".

I said nothing about the readers.

Why dont you show me this "evidence".

Check out Gardner's book. I am not going to wade through 2000 pages of stuff that the authors are unwilling to admit where they got it from and how they got it. Thats standard crackpot tactics. If they want me to take them seriously they had best stop trying to be so evasive. That site made it clear they don't want to do that though.

Perhaps Martin should have actually read the book before writing about it. His book contains outright lies about the urantia book.

He did read it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...010855-5856838

I read what the apoligists said. They didn't show any errors on Gardner's part. They show that they had a reading problem though. They showed they were in denial just as you apear to be.

As the full quotation of the paragraph below shows, this is essentially what the paragraph in question in the Urantia Book is saying; that there was no Star of Bethlehem, it was only a myth, a legend, albeit a beautiful one, and that ancient man was "continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes."

This not what Gardner said however. Gardner said exactly what Urantia said and he showed it wrong. The planets did not come together as The Book of Unrantia says.

These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces.

Only there was no such conjunction and that is what Gardner said. This is simply a case of someone that is rephrasing Gardner in his head and changing the meaning in the process.

The Religious Tolerance site is a good site anyway. Not very usefull in this case though.

During the 1920's and 1930's, a Chicago psychiatrist, Dr. W.S. Sadler (1875-1969) became very interested in an unusual case. Sadler had been asked to examine a patient after the patient's wife noticed he was talking in his sleep, and seemed to be speaking for various super-mortal personalities, called revelators. The name of this person has been kept secret and the exact manner of communication is not clear. However, Dr. Sadler insisted that this process did not involve spiritualism, channeling, or automatic writing.

He claims its not channeling but it is and the source is the one Gardner said. A patient of a psychiatrist. Calling a cow a horse won't make it one and claiming a channeler isn't one won't change that either.

There are many concepts in the book which are directly traceable to earlier works by human authors, including scientists and early Seventh-Day Adventists teachers. The celestial revelators explain that they are required to make use of existing human concepts wherever possible.

Funny how they used a crackpot religion for the concepts.

The world is viewed as one of 10 million inhabited worlds in our local universe called Nebadon.

Unverifiable.

God the Universal Father is the ultimate source of all things, yet he is also knowable as a loving personal being.

The same.

The Universal Father can act in concert with other deity personalities in a complex association of three trinities, The Trinity of Trinities.

Christian thinking squared.

The book describes a form of theistic evolution which deviates from the Bible's account in Genesis, Chapter 1 and 2. It also does not fully agree with Naturalistic Evolution, as it is currently understood by scientists.

So then its wrong on evolution.

Just as lower animals evolved into humans, we are destined to become spirit beings, called finaliters. The book details our long progression of spiritual experiences on other, more advanced, worlds.

Unverifiable but all evidence shows that evolution has no direction.

The book teaches that an a fragment of God's spirit dwells within each person; this is called a Thought Adjuster. Its role is to guide the individual towards greater spiritual understanding through many lives on other worlds.

Unverifiable.

The book corrects the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and the concept of atonement. Adam and Eve did not "fall," although they fell short of their mandate to uplift humankind. People today do not suffer from original sin, and thus do not need to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. They are inherently children of God.

Seventh Day Adventist precept I think. Not sure about it though.

The book counters many beliefs that Christians have traditionally held about the nature and message of Jesus Christ; it expands upon his known teachings.

All wholey unverifiable.

Jesus boldly proclaimed the spiritual equality of women at a time when women were not even allowed on the main floor of the synagogue. The book explains that Jesus appointed twelve women evangelists, and these women remained faithful even when his apostles denied or betrayed him.

False if the Bible is even remotely accurate about the life of Jesus. Of course its likely that the Bible has many errors from what I can see. However there is nothing to support the claim.

The book attributes the following teachings to Jesus: "Prayer is self-reminding; worship is self-forgetting." "Worship must alternate with service, work should alternate with play, religion should be balanced by humor, profound philosophy should be relieved by rhythmic poetry, the strain of living should be relaxed by the restfulness of worship."

Funny how the Bible does no such thing.

The world's religions are all beneficial, "to the extent that they bring man to God and bring the realization of the Father to man... all contain truth." "The Hebrews based their religion on goodness; the Greeks on beauty; both religions sought truth. Jesus revealed a God of love, and love is all-embracing of truth, beauty, and goodness."

I see they haven't actually read about the atrocities that Jehovah did in the Bible. The Hebrews did not base their religion on goodness.

Well that explained just about nothing. Its a lot of unverifiable assertions and they don't even want us to know where they came from.

[Stefu]

Considering that the Left has taken to referring to conservatives as Neanderthals, I wonder what Neanderthals referred to their traditionalists as.

"Ugg think Chief Zug have too many wives. Ugg think in fairer tribe Chief Zug forced give his wives away."

"Grogg think Ugg wrong. Grogg think Ugg pinko Commie Marxist-Stalinist."

"Ugg think Grogg such a missing link."

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I have more sense than to read it.

Very sensible of you.

Check out Gardner's book. I am not going to wade through 2000 pages of stuff that the authors are unwilling to admit where they got it from and how they got it. Thats standard crackpot tactics. If they want me to take them seriously they had best stop trying to be so evasive. That site made it clear they don't want to do that though.

Gardner's book is incorrect on many points. If you could be bothered to do the research instead of regurgitating what you read on some website you would know this.

I read what the apoligists said. They didn't show any errors on Gardner's part. They show that they had a reading problem though. They showed they were in denial just as you apear to be.

If cant admit that the distortions that are clearly shown, then it is you who is in denial.

This not what Gardner said however. Gardner said exactly what Urantia said and he showed it wrong. The planets did not come together as The Book of Unrantia says.

No, Gardner falsely quoted the urantia book as saying that the planets appeared as one star.

Quote:

These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces.

Only there was no such conjunction and that is what Gardner said. This is simply a case of someone that is rephrasing Gardner in his head and changing the meaning in the process.

Nope, this is what Gardner said:
"On page 1352 of the Urantia Book we learn that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star, which we know it didn't, and this accounts for what the supermortals call the "beautiful legend" that grew up about the "Star.""

Nowhere does Gardner say there was no such conjunction.

Quote:

During the 1920's and 1930's, a Chicago psychiatrist, Dr. W.S. Sadler (1875-1969) became very interested in an unusual case. Sadler had been asked to examine a patient after the patient's wife noticed he was talking in his sleep, and seemed to be speaking for various super-mortal personalities, called revelators. The name of this person has been kept secret and the exact manner of communication is not clear. However, Dr. Sadler insisted that this process did not involve spiritualism, channeling, or automatic writing.

He claims its not channeling but it is and the source is the one Gardner said. A patient of a psychiatrist. Calling a cow a horse won't make it one and claiming a channeler isn't one won't change that either.

Channeling involves a subject who is conscious of what is happening to them, but if it makes you feel better to call it channeling, go ahead.

Quote:

There are many concepts in the book which are directly traceable to earlier works by human authors, including scientists and early Seventh-Day Adventists teachers. The celestial revelators explain that they are required to make use of existing human concepts wherever possible.

Funny how they used a crackpot religion for the concepts.

I love how you just dismiss an entire religion as "crackpot". All religions contain some elements of truth.

Quote:

The world is viewed as one of 10 million inhabited worlds in our local universe called Nebadon.

Unverifiable.

Doesnt make it false.

Quote:

God the Universal Father is the ultimate source of all things, yet he is also knowable as a loving personal being.

The same.

The same.

Quote:

The Universal Father can act in concert with other deity personalities in a complex association of three trinities, The Trinity of Trinities.

Christian thinking squared.

Whatever makes you feel comfortable.

Quote:

The book describes a form of theistic evolution which deviates from the Bible's account in Genesis, Chapter 1 and 2. It also does not fully agree with Naturalistic Evolution, as it is currently understood by scientists.

So then its wrong on evolution.

So current science is infallable? I see.

Quote:

Just as lower animals evolved into humans, we are destined to become spirit beings, called finaliters. The book details our long progression of spiritual experiences on other, more advanced, worlds.

Unverifiable but all evidence shows that evolution has no direction.

If it had no direction it wouldnt be evolution.

Quote:

The book teaches that an a fragment of God's spirit dwells within each person; this is called a Thought Adjuster. Its role is to guide the individual towards greater spiritual understanding through many lives on other worlds.

Unverifiable.

...and never will be verifiable by science.

Quote:

The book corrects the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and the concept of atonement. Adam and Eve did not "fall," although they fell short of their mandate to uplift humankind. People today do not suffer from original sin, and thus do not need to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. They are inherently children of God.

Seventh Day Adventist precept I think. Not sure about it though.

As was stated earlier "The celestial revelators explain that they are required to make use of existing human concepts wherever possible.".

Quote:

The book counters many beliefs that Christians have traditionally held about the nature and message of Jesus Christ; it expands upon his known teachings.

All wholey unverifiable.

This is easily verified by reading the 4th part of the book "The life and teachings of Jesus".

Quote:

Jesus boldly proclaimed the spiritual equality of women at a time when women were not even allowed on the main floor of the synagogue. The book explains that Jesus appointed twelve women evangelists, and these women remained faithful even when his apostles denied or betrayed him.

False if the Bible is even remotely accurate about the life of Jesus. Of course its likely that the Bible has many errors from what I can see. However there is nothing to support the claim.

The bible has been distorded and changed many times over the centuries.

Quote:

The book attributes the following teachings to Jesus: "Prayer is self-reminding; worship is self-forgetting." "Worship must alternate with service, work should alternate with play, religion should be balanced by humor, profound philosophy should be relieved by rhythmic poetry, the strain of living should be relaxed by the restfulness of worship."

Funny how the Bible does no such thing.

What does that paragraph have to do with the bible? It is a urantia book quote.

Quote:

The world's religions are all beneficial, "to the extent that they bring man to God and bring the realization of the Father to man... all contain truth." "The Hebrews based their religion on goodness; the Greeks on beauty; both religions sought truth. Jesus revealed a God of love, and love is all-embracing of truth, beauty, and goodness."

I see they haven't actually read about the atrocities that Jehovah did in the Bible. The Hebrews did not base their religion on goodness.

There is a big difference between what a religion is based on, and what it becomes. The hebrews could only concieve of God as a stern and legal dictator, part of Jesus mission was to spread the message of God's love.

Well that explained just about nothing. Its a lot of unverifiable assertions and they don't even want us to know where they came from.

Many things are unverifiable.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Stefu
Considering that the Left has taken to referring to conservatives as Neanderthals, I wonder what Neanderthals referred to their traditionalists as.

Based on that great and highly accurate film One Million Years BC I would guess they might have been called dinosaurs.

Especially the Ray Harryhausen remake with Raquel Welch. Boy that had all the science done right.

Well it had a small bikinni on Rocky and Ray Harryhausen stop motion work anyway.

[November Adam]

You guys should read a few of Robert J Sawyer's books. He's come out with a new one Hominids, that I haven't read yet, but looks kinda interesting. He writes ficition books by the way.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Caligastia
If cant admit that the distortions that are clearly shown, then it is you who is in denial.

They may be some there but they were not clearly shown and one reference does not mean that other parts are inaccurate even if Gardner did blow one. Martin Gardner is a reputable science writer. The author of Urantia isn't even willing to admit to his existence.

Nowhere does Gardner say there was no such conjunction.

That is the gist of what was quoted by the critic.

Channeling involves a subject who is conscious of what is happening to them, but if it makes you feel better to call it channeling, go ahead.

It doesn't matter if the person is conscious or not. It still can't be checked in anyway. It identical to Edgar Cayce except he apparently was speaking instead of writing in his sleep.

I love how you just dismiss an entire religion as "crackpot". All religions contain some elements of truth.

It would be hard for them not to especially when they plagarize from others. Even the BOM must have something that you would consider truth, its still a fake.

Doesnt make it false.

The same.

True but its lack of verifiability makes it something that can sound good to believers without being true. I want something that can be verified. Genisis would be verifiable IF it where true for instance. It has been shown wrong. I am not going to go through 2000 pages of sleep talking to find anything that might show the truth or falsity of Urantia.

So current science is infallable? I see.

I never said that. However it has evidence to support it. Urantia doesn't appear to. They don't even want us to be able to check. Thats not a good sign.

If it had no direction it wouldnt be evolution.

I take it then you haven't a clue about evolution. It was not directed towards life as we know it today. Evolution is only about survival. Survival is the only thing that remotely approaches a direction. If conditions change than what worked in the past may no longer work.

As was stated earlier "The celestial revelators explain that they are required to make use of existing human concepts wherever possible.".

I am sure a competent writer could have used other concepts that were not based on the fantasies of a crackpot religion. Perhaps just a touch of real science for instance.

This is easily verified by reading the 4th part of the book "The life and teachings of Jesus".

That is not verification. The Bible is the only known source of anything Jesus ever said. Show it in the Bible.

The bible has been distorded and changed many times over the centuries.

Most likely but there is no way to check on Urantia now is there. At least we can often find old copies of the Bible and they do indeed support the present version when they are found. Any distortions came in the first three to five hundred years.

What does that paragraph have to do with the bible? It is a urantia book quote.

The Bible is the only source for what Jesus actually may have said. All the rest is invention or alleged revelation. Unless the revelation can be verified its not worth trusting. I can't look into an anonymous person's head. Heck I can't even look into the head of people that aren't anonynomous. Maybe Oral Roberts really did see an 800 foot tall Jesus. Then again maybe the moon is made of green cheese and all the astronauts lied.

There is a big difference between what a religion is based on, and what it becomes. The hebrews could only concieve of God as a stern and legal dictator, part of Jesus mission was to spread the message of God's love.

Surely a powerfull god could have arranged for the Bible to show that then. Its not in the Bible. There is however a rather savage god that likes revenge in the Bible and its Jehovah. I see no signs of a loving god there.

Many things are unverifiable.

Yes and in this case ALL things seemed to be unverifiable. How convenient.

How about you show something that IS verifiable?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ethelred
They may be some there but they were not clearly shown and one reference does not mean that other parts are inaccurate even if Gardner did blow one.

Here is a detailed review of Martin gardner's book:
http://www.ubook.org/bookReviews/GCMReviewNDuval.html

Martin Gardner is a reputable science writer. The author of Urantia isn't even willing to admit to his existence.

How would the "author" (incidentally its "authors") admit his existence when the urantia book came about before Martin was born?

That is the gist of what was quoted by the critic.

How do you get that from it? The quote is clear:

"On page 1352 of the Urantia Book we learn that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star, which we know it didn't, and this accounts for what the supermortals call the "beautiful legend" that grew up about the "Star.""

All Martin is saying is that the conjunction didnt give the appearance of a single star. I dont know where you get the idea that he is denying the conjunction happened at all.

It would be hard for them not to especially when they plagarize from others. Even the BOM must have something that you would consider truth, its still a fake.

All the established religions have elements of truth mixed with falsehood. Its up to us to decide what we think is true or false.

True but its lack of verifiability makes it something that can sound good to believers without being true. I want something that can be verified. Genisis would be verifiable IF it where true for instance. It has been shown wrong. I am not going to go through 2000 pages of sleep talking to find anything that might show the truth or falsity of Urantia.

Would you expect the latest revelation of God to man to be completely verifiable? The urantia book expands greatly on what we have learned from the bible and other religions, so of course there is information beyond our capability to verify.

I never said that. However it has evidence to support it. Urantia doesn't appear to. They don't even want us to be able to check. Thats not a good sign.

The Urantia Book has plenty of evidence to support it. Including scientific evidence which I already provided for you in a link.
Of course, not everything in it can be supported or verified, but the book is always consistent in its cosmology.

I take it then you haven't a clue about evolution. It was not directed towards life as we know it today. Evolution is only about survival. Survival is the only thing that remotely approaches a direction. If conditions change than what worked in the past may no longer work.

Evolution is gradual improvement, devolution is the opposite. Do I have to get the dictionary out?

I am sure a competent writer could have used other concepts that were not based on the fantasies of a crackpot religion. Perhaps just a touch of real science for instance.

There are many human sources used in the urantia book, not just "crackpot" religious ones. I have already linked you to a discussion of science in the urantia book.

That is not verification. The Bible is the only known source of anything Jesus ever said. Show it in the Bible.

Whether you believe it to be true or not, the 4th part of the urantia book "counters many beliefs that Christians have traditionally held about the nature and message of Jesus Christ" and "expands upon his known teachings".

Most likely but there is no way to check on Urantia now is there.

Have you even tried?

At least we can often find old copies of the Bible and they do indeed support the present version when they are found.

How old are these copies you speak of? The Bible has been translated many times, and even old copies are likely to be inaccurate when you consider the fact that much of the old testament was written thousands of years before christ.

Any distortions came in the first three to five hundred years.

You are forgetting about the old testament.

Surely a powerfull god could have arranged for the Bible to show that then. Its not in the Bible. There is however a rather savage god that likes revenge in the Bible and its Jehovah. I see no signs of a loving god there.

Jesus tried on many occasions to teach the concept of a just and loving God to his followers, but their concept had not evolved to that point yet. If God had given them a urantia book they would never have understood it. Revelation is progressive. Every revelation builds on the previous one. God only reveals new and advanced concepts when we are ready to receive them.

Yes and in this case ALL things seemed to be unverifiable. How convenient.

How about you show something that IS verifiable?

You still havent clicked on that science link have you? Continental drift is verifiable and is a major part of the history presented in the urantia book, but at the time of book's transmission the theory of continental drift was scoffed at or ignored by most scientists.

[Seneca]

I'm starting to wonder if the only role left to me on Apolyton is to post to every thread and say 'Hey! I started a thread on this ages ago and no-one replied!'...

[Seneca]

But it's an almost perfect analogy - like the Neanderthals, my perfectly adapted, evidently more intelligent thread died out, yet Horsie's seemingly more primitive, more constrained and inbred thread is the one that survived - the reasons may never be fully understood.

[Ethelred]

Erroneous post. I think I hit a magic key combo by accident and it was posted in severly unfinished state.

[Hydey]

I'm not sure Horse but I think the christians are walking in anyway.

[Hydey]

Originally posted by Caligastia
So interbreeding was impossible because female neanderthals were so ugly that arousal was impossible?

You must remember that both groups had discovered the joy of fermented fruit.

The beer goggles worked wonders even back then.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Hydey
I'm not sure Horse but I think the christians are walking in anyway.

[Hydey]

Walk right in
Sit right down
Horsey lets his troll hang down.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Here is a detailed review of Martin gardner's book:
http://www.ubook.org/bookReviews/GCMReviewNDuval.html

A review by a UB member. Hardly an impartial critic. He imediatly does exactly what he accused Gardner of.

Things like

In Chapter 6 Martin tries to make his case that the sleeping subject in the transmission of the Urantia Papers was Wilfred Custer Kellogg. While this is interesting speculation, the fact is that it will never be known who the contact person was, nor is it important. If you get an telegram from your father, is it necessary to know the name of the telegram boy? Of course not. This is just idle curiosity run rampant.

Its not just idle curiosity and the telegram boy at least had a piece of paper and know company that sent him. If the source is a dubious one so it the data. Garbage in garbage out and they refuse to let anyone see if there was garbage collector in the path of the data. The source IS a valid question. There is no reason to hide the source except a fear of the truth.

He constantly rants about Gardner's rhetoric while engaging in the same.

Harry certainly was an interesting and colorful fellow who, like Sherman if not more so, seemed to have a truckload of airhead beliefs.

Apparently its OK for Norm Du Val to use loaded language but Gardner mustn't.

Prematurely in this chapter, Martin starts in on his science critique saying, "There is, however, one aspect of OAHSPE cosmology that rises above the cosmology of the UB. I refer to its theory about the origin of our solar system....As we shall learn later, the UB defends the Chamberlin-Moulton hypothesis, popular at the time the Papers were written, but since today totally discarded by astronomers in favor of the theory that stars and planets condensed from rotating nebulas." Note that according to Martin, the new idea from astronomers is also a "theory". Further, The Urantia Book doesn't "defend" the Chamberlin-Moulton hypothesis, it simply says this is the way events happened

So it has it wrong then despite the allegedly advanced source of information. That theory says a passing star drew matter out of the Sun. That was pretty dubious when it was first put forth. We can SEE the formation of planetary systems in the beginning stages now. There are disks of dust and larger particles around young stars. We have more than ample evidence that the planets formed out of material that remained after the Sun formed from a nebula.

Well that's one item that can be checked anyway in Urantia. It fails the check. That's the first thing in this rant that deals with a substantial checkable statement in Urantia and it failed. He does seem to have caught Gardner in some error but none this big.

Nearly half way through and I did learn the source for your name is Urantia. That was enlightening anyway.

On page 183 Martin says, "Liberal Urantians freely admit the UB contains serious scientific errors." Who are these Urantians labeled as "liberal"? Can they "freely admit" anything about The Urantia Book if they didn't write it? No, they can only have an opinion. Does The Urantia Book contain serious scientific errors? Again the answer is no. Martin has successfully included several false ideas in one sentence.

Well I just found that one serious error above so I know there ARE errors despite his refusal to admit to them. Stonewalling won't change reality.

The fact that there is no big-bang cosmology (theory) in the UB is, rather than being an error or an embarrassment, actually more proof that The Urantia Book is a Revelation. Even as I write, the big bang theory is coming under heavy pressure and is subject to fall. It has been recently discovered that some of the stars in the Milky Way Galaxy are 17-20 billion years old, while the Universe itself is only 8-12 billion years old. This does not bode well for the big bang theory. The Revelators could hardly be expected to put in bogus science, the big bang theory, knowing it to be wrong.

Too bad for Norm that he is wrong again. The Big Bang still fits the data and the age of the stars and the universe are not presently thought to be what he says. That wasn't knew data it was old data he presented there.

On page 465 as I read it, we are told that our Sun will last about 62 billion years. Current science says about 10-12 billion.

Current science is at least close. 62 billion is way wrong. If that were true there would be no white dwarfs.

The book tells us that the Red man crossed the Bering Land Bridge about 85,000 years ago. Until very recently science thought that event happened 10,000-12,000 years ago.

It still does. There is a possibility that some people came earlier but nowhere near that early and they came along the coast in boats not on the land if they came at all. Earliest likely date for that would be around 50,000 years with 60,000 being way to the outside.

Martin writes, "Our galaxy, it says, came into existence 875 billion years ago..." The Urantia Book does not say that "our galaxy" (the Milky Way) came into existence 875 billion years ago. It is very difficult to deal with this sort of misstatement. Everything Martin says has to be checked for accuracy. A careful reading of the text of the UB will show that the Andronover Nebula was a part of Orvonton, which itself is actually the galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Obviously if the Andronover Nebula was a part of the Milky Way and is 875 billion then the galaxy must be of a similar age. However the Galaxy is not that old. Its more like 10 to 15 billion.

The fact is that the "jump theory" is almost the same as The Urantia Book's explanation, thereby validating The Urantia Book.

False. He just said

On page 194, speaking about The Urantia Book's take on evolution which says that in many cases species change "suddenly" and sometimes in one generation,

Species do not change in one generation. Perhaps one individual birth in extreme circumstance like the gain or doubling of an entire chromosome can give rise to what becomes a new species over generations but not the whole species in one go.

On page 206 Martin talks about the "background radiation" temperature. He says that The Urantia Book's mention of it is no big deal, and blithely asserts the big bang as the source. The Urantia Book however gives a quite different explanation of the space heat. It says on page 473,

"Gravity presence and action is what prevents the appearance of the theoretical absolute zero, for interstellar space does not have the temperature of absolute zero."

Two errors there. The Cosmic Background radiation has an energy curve that fits Big Bang theory. Gravity has nothing to do with the impossibility of achieving Absolute Zero. It's the Uncertainty Principle that is the cause of that.

Page 477-
"Surrounding this energy center there whirl, in endless profusion but in fluctuating circuits, the energy units which are faintly comparable to the planets encircling the sun of some starry group like your own solar system."

That's wrong too. Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. Or whirl or circuit. Any of those would result in synchrotron radiation which does not happen.

Well I read that whole thing. I can see where Gardner may have made some errors all right but I can also see that Norm Du Val was being just as picayune as he said Gardner was. I also have now seen some things that could be checked and that failed the check. Well it was nice to have something verifiable. Verifiably wrong in a number of places.

How would the "author" (incidentally its "authors") admit his existence when the urantia book came about before Martin was born?

I was referring to the sleeping psychiatric patient and all the others that were involved in the Book of Urantia. They don't want to admit to their own existence.

All Martin is saying is that the conjunction didnt give the appearance of a single star. I dont know where you get the idea that he is denying the conjunction happened at all.

That is one possible way to think of it. I think it's the lack of conjunction. Perhaps not. As I say I can see where it's likely that Martin made some errors. I think he took on a bit too much and lost track of all the details upon occasion.

Would you expect the latest revelation of God to man to be completely verifiable? The urantia book expands greatly on what we have learned from the bible and other religions, so of course there is information beyond our capability to verify.

I wasn't asking for total verifiability. Just for something. Norm Du Val provided some in his critique of Gardner's book. I showed that at least some were wrong.

The Urantia Book has plenty of evidence to support it. Including scientific evidence which I already provided for you in a link.
Of course, not everything in it can be supported or verified, but the book is always consistent in its cosmology.

I don't care if its consistent if it is also wrong and it is wrong in at least half the scientific things I could check on that Norm quoted. That's not a good rate for a revelation from vastly more knowledgeable sources.

Evolution is gradual improvement, devolution is the opposite. Do I have to get the dictionary out?

Yes. Better yet get a paleontology text and learn something real from actual experts. There is no such thing as devolution. Evolution is adaptation to the environment which can sometimes result in gradual improvement in terms of intelligence anyway. It usually doesn't. Insects haven't gotten any smarter they just develop specializations that fit the specifics of their niche. When the niche changes they must adapt to the new one or go extinct. Mostly they go extinct when there is a major change.

There are many human sources used in the urantia book, not just "crackpot" religious ones. I have already linked you to a discussion of science in the urantia book.

Thank you. It gave me a chance to check out its error rate. Its kind of high.

Whether you believe it to be true or not, the 4th part of the urantia book "counters many beliefs that Christians have traditionally held about the nature and message of Jesus Christ" and "expands upon his known teachings".

Thats what it claims anyway. I see no reason to consider it credible after those science checks.

Have you even tried?

Just did. It lost on the science checks. I was however speaking of their refusal to admit to who the actual people involved where. That makes it hard to check out their level of credibility. Perhaps they knew that Edgar Cayce turned out not to be credible and wanted to avoid that sort of thing.

How old are these copies you speak of? The Bible has been translated many times, and even old copies are likely to be inaccurate when you consider the fact that much of the old testament was written thousands of years before christ.

We were mostly talking about Jesus so we are talking about that sort of time frame. The Bible was translated directly from the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and from the original Greek for the New Testament. In fact the original Hebrew is readily available and any claim that it has translation errors doesn't hold water as you can just learn to read Hebrew and get the original.

You are forgetting about the old testament.

Not when we are talking about Jesus and we were.

Jesus tried on many occasions to teach the concept of a just and loving God to his followers, but their concept had not evolved to that point yet. If God had given them a urantia book they would never have understood it. Revelation is progressive. Every revelation builds on the previous one. God only reveals new and advanced concepts when we are ready to receive them.

There is little to support that claim in the Bible.

You still havent clicked on that science link have you? Continental drift is verifiable and is a major part of the history presented in the urantia book, but at the time of book's transmission the theory of continental drift was scoffed at or ignored by most scientists.

What science link? You gave a link to a critique and the one in your sig. However the link to the critique did produce some failed science in Urantia. Interesting that they accepted Continental Drift then but it was not unheard of and they have plenty of errors in other places. Its not the hits that count when you are claiming a revelation, its the misses. They show the source is not right. I bet even Diuretics ooops Dianetics managed to get a few things right. L. Ron was still a con artist. I suspect the Urantia group is sincere anyway. Wrong but sincere.

Gack! this is a bloated toad. I am glad to say that most of it is quotes and I didn't really just type up 2281 words.

[Ethelred]

You still havent clicked on that science link have you?

I just found it. Will go over it later after I do some other things. Like look at the rest of this thread for instance. It is about Neanderthals after all.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I just found it. Will go over it later after I do some other things. Like look at the rest of this thread for instance. It is about Neanderthals after all.

Before I compose another marathon rebuttal, would you prefer if we continued this in its own thread?

[Ethelred]

I don't care. If you want new people to see this nonsense you are into you go right ahead.

Your science link is cheating at the start. They are pretending that 1935 is the date for checking predictions when the stuff was still in flux and no where near published. I am going to use the publishing date as that can be checked. What they are doing is disengenous at best unless someone can give proof that there were no changes between 1935 and the actual publishing date.

[Ethelred]

From Caligastia's link for Urantia science.

http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/ginsss2.htm

I.A.1.--Healing Chemicals for Wounds (Medicine, *735)

[Parentheses show the field of science and The Urantia Book page number. Scientific information is available in any good modern encyclopedia.]

The Urantia Book claims that healing chemicals for wounds will be discovered. In 1928, penicillin was discovered, but serious work did not start until ten years later. Sulfa drugs were discovered in 1935 but came into use five years later. Both of these chemicals fight infection and speed up the healing process. Both discoveries were essentially unknown in 1935, and this is a prediction that has partially come true. The book also speaks of healing chemicals that involve the cells themselves, and the book hints at other discoveries of this type which will be made in the future.

Those are anti-infection chemicals not healing chemicals and claiming otherwise is dubious at best. There will probably be such chemicals in the future. It doesn't take a revelation to predict that.

I.A.2.--Plate Tectonics or Continental Drift (Geology, *663,668)

The book says that the continents drift slowly over the surface of the Earth, and the drift started about 700 million years ago. This was proposed in the early years of the twentieth century and had not been proved by 1935. However, a look at the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa readily shows the ancient fit. But science requires proof, and proof came in 1969 by matching subsurface earth layers on the two continents and finding an ocean floor crack between the continents. However, the start of the drift was recently computed by science as starting 200 million years ago, based on the oldest ocean bottom rocks in the Atlantic Ocean. Another prediction essentially came true even if science calls this plate tectonics.

Well they said too much there. They got the idea but the details are wrong. Drift started long before that. It wasn't their prediction but an acceptance of an not yet proven theory. For revelation from a vastly more knowledgable intelect essentially isn't very good but it might do if the date wasn't so wrong. The plates have been moving since they first formed billions of years ago.

I.A.3.--Source of the Sun's Energy (Physics, Astrophysics, *464)

The book says the sun generates energy by combining four hydrogen atoms to form one helium atom, using carbon as a catalyst. This is a mass-to-energy conversion. Science worked out this technology in 1939. This prediction also came true.

They are cheating here. The book wasn't published then and things in Urantia appear to have changed in at least some places between 1935 and the publishing date. The book doesn't say that either from what I could tell.

The Sun does not use carbon catalysis in its reactions in anycase. Thats an old theory that was around when the book was published. Its not a prediction to claim in the fifties something from 1939 that is wrong anyway.

Link for a touch of reality.

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/interior.htm

I.A.4.--Temperature at the Center of the Sun (Physics, Astrophysics, *463)

The book claims that the temperature at the center of the sun is 35 million degrees F. In the mid '30s, science only guessed at a temperature of millions of degrees. An estimate of 29 million degrees was made in the late '30s. This is good agreement.

Good agreement but since Urantia was published in 1955 why should it be considered a prediction. I sure can't pretend that hard.

I.A.5.--Chemical Element with Atomic Number 101 (Nuclear Physics, *478)

The book says that the very heavy element, number 101 (the number relates to the structure and electric charge of the atomic nucleus) would be so unstable that it would disintegrate radioactively almost instantaneously. In 1935, the heaviest naturally occurring element known was Uranium, number 92, and it disintegrated slowly. Experiments to make heavier elements were done in the late '30s, but with little success--certainly not up to number 101. This was finally done years later, was labeled Mendelevium, and it turned out to be stable for about an hour. This is not a bad fit for the prediction, but critics will say that a competent scientist could have made a good guess.

Especially in 1955. Not a prediction and I don't call and hour almost instantly.

From

http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/elements/101.html

(Dmitri Mendeleev) Mendelevium, the ninth transuranium element of the actinide series discovered, was first identified by Ghiorso, Harvey, Choppin, Thompson, and Seaborg in early in 1955 during the bombardment of the isotope 253Es with helium ions in the Berkeley 60-inch cyclotron. The isotope produced was 256Md, which has a half-life of 76 min. This first identification was notable in that 256Md was synthesized on a one-atom-at-a-time basis.

Gosh such a prediction. In 1955 they predicted something that happened in 1955.

Oh dear I looked at what Urantia REALLY says. It made no prediction that an element with an atomic number 101 would be made. It said:

In Orvonton it has never been possible naturally to assemble over one hundred orbital electrons in one atomic system. When one hundred and one have been artificially introduced into the orbital field, the result has always been the well-nigh instantaneous disruption of the central proton with the wild dispersion of the electrons and other liberated energies.

First electrons have nothing to do with this. Its the proton and neutrons that are involved. 76 minutes is not well-nigh instantaneous.

Oh lets cover some more of that passage in Urantia instead of just the carefully selected stuff they want us to see.

While atoms may contain from one to one hundred orbital electrons, only the outer ten electrons of the larger atoms revolve about the central nucleus as distinct and discrete bodies, intactly and compactly swinging around on precise and definite orbits.

Electrons do not orbit. The outer shell is eight at the most not ten if I remeber correctly. Could be wrong on the outer shell cause its been a long time since I took Chemistry 111A and B.

The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron.

Nonsense. Protons remain positively charged and neutrons remain neutral. The nucleus is held togethor by the Strong Force which is transmited by the gluon particles. We could say the mesotron is the same as the gluon if the rest wasn't such a mess and they didn't get the mass wrong. Urantia claims the mesotron weighs 180 times what an electron does. The real gluon has no mass at all. Thats pretty far wrong.

Well on to the next fabrication.

I.A.6.--Discovery of the Neutrino Particle (Nuclear Physics, *464,479)

The book mentions a small, unnamed, chargeless particle which could be the particle that science calls the neutrino. The particle was theoretically predicted in 1931 and was labeled the neutrino; but because it was so difficult to detect, it was not found until 1938. Here again critics might argue about an educated guess, but the prediction did come true.

Again predicted in 1955 at the publishing date so I remain unimpressed. I too can claim to have predicted that Kennedy would be shot in 1963 now as long as no one can see the actual claim till now and is willing to pretend that I actually made it in 1960 instead of now.

No neutrino like comments at all in 479. There is a mention of a tiny chargeless particle in 464 but that is still something from 1955 not 1935. So far all these alleged predictions came true before the book was published. That pretty dubious.

I.A.7.--Mass of the Meson Particle (Nuclear Physics, *479)

The book uses the term "mesotron" instead of the presently used word "meson." The mesotron term was used in the 1930s when the early theoretical work was done on this particle. The presenters were familiar with the mesotron work. The book claims the mesotron has a mass that is 180 times the mass of the electron. Science has found that the mass is 207 times the electron mass. This is a small discrepancy. However, the presenter was aware of the term mesotron, and this shows knowledge of human thought. This prediction does agree with science, but it was made at a time coincident with the discovery.

Wrong. The alleged properies of the Mesotron are more like a gluon than anything else. Except for the mass of course. Mesons are high order leptons and have nothing at all to do with holding a nucleus together. They don't even exist under normal conditions and have to be made in a cyclotron. Mixing one thing with another based on the name alone isn't the same as an accurate prediction. The only thing meson like about the mesotron besides the name is the mass. That won't cut it as a prediction.

Score: Seven predictions agree with science.

So far not one real prediction. Every bloody one wasn't published till after science had proved things and some are just plain wrong anyway.

I.B.1.--Creation of the Sun (Cosmology, Stellar Physics, *651)

Science says that the sun was created when an enormous cloud of gas contracted by gravity and heated itself by gas compression until it was hot enough to become a solar furnace. The book says the same thing except that there were about one million other suns that were also created from the same enormous Andronover Nebula. Their creation took about two billion years, and they were ejected from the nebula after formation. Science does not know about the other million suns or the nebula or the ejection from the nebula, but there is good overlap in this case.

A million suns in a single nebula would be quite a lot.

Oh I have got to put this in. Its hilarious.

At the time of the beginning of this recital, the Primary Master Force Organizers of Paradise had long been in full control of the space-energies which were later organized as the Andronover nebula.

987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton.

I love that acting inspector bit. Do they do stand up? No wonder Gardner was so derisive. This is garbage.

The Universe isn't anywhere near that old either. I think I will try a few more of these but this kind of nonsense looses its ability to amuse quickly.

I.B.2.--Creation of the Earth and Moon (Cosmology, Astronomy, *659)

Science says that the Earth condensed when the sun did and picked up some material by accretion of meteors and planetesimals. The moon was created when a planetesimal hit the Earth and ejected enough material that coalesced to form the moon. Interestingly, an old, discredited theory said that the moon was torn away from the Earth, leaving the pacific basin, but did not specify the cause. The book says that the Earth and the moon coalesced as a pair of twin planets after the giant Angona Nebula came close to the sun and pulled away enough material to form all the planets. The sun and the moon both grew by accretion--the Earth enormously so, compared to the moon. Again, there is some overlap, but differences in details.

There is no actual overlap. Its impossible as stated. Nebulas are just that. Nebulous. They don't have the concentrated mass needed to draw material from the Sun. That would take a really massive and dense object. A white dwarf that got really close would do.

I.C.1.--Creation of Matter and Energy (Cosmology, Physics, *49,55,468)

While there is disagreement, perhaps there is a glimmer of agreement.

Or perhaps not.

I.C.3.--Life Implanted on Earth 550 Million Years Ago (Paleontology, *667)

The book says that life was implanted on the Earth 550 million years ago, but it does not specify exactly what was implanted. Science says that life started over 3 billion years ago, as single-cell life. This is based on circumstantial evidence of ancient cellular structures that resemble living single-cell structures. Science also says that multi-cell life with significant DNA--structures in a cell that control all phases of cell life--appeared 600 million years ago. The differences here may ultimately be resolved. Science has produced the building blocks of life, but has never combined them to produce any lifelike structure that can reproduce itself. Science has never created life from scratch and does not know how to do it.

Wrong again. There is ample evidence of life prior to 550 million years ago. Actual fossils. The stuff from three billion years ago is a bit questionable still though. Muticellur fossils have been found from 800 million years ago. Then there is scratch build polio virus that was announced last month. The differences will only become more pronounced as older fossil life is found since there is allready fossils from before their date.

The book says that the greatest lava flow of all time occurred at the end of the Cretaceous--it covered parts of several continents. It could have come from deep in the Earth, thus providing a source of iridium.

The irdium came from a meteor in the KT event. Not the geatest lava flow either. That was the Deccan Traps and they are only number two. Number one is the Siberian Trapps and that is from around 250 million years ago.

I.C.5.--Breakup of the Fifth Planet from the Sun (Astronomy, Cosmology, *658)

The book says that the fifth planet from the sun was slowly attracted by the gravity of the giant sixth planet, Jupiter. When it was close enough, Jupiter's gravity pulled the fifth planet apart. Science now says there never was a fifth planet, and that the asteroids are pieces of space matter (planetesimals) that never formed a planet.

Score: Five presently unfilled predictions.

Only if you pretend real hard. Some are failed predictions including the one above. To many of the asteroids are clearly not from a planet.

Thats enough of this stuff for now. If you have REAL prediction you think is especially telling how about you mention it instead making me do all the searching. Give the page number so I can check out the context.

[Caligastia]

At this particular point, although I appreciate your comments, I am growing weary of the limitless tit-for-tat cerebralisms and apparent acceptance of current scientific knowledge as being the final arbitor of who what and why.

I was hoping to have a discussion that would be mutually beneficial without being subject to your pomposity and absolute adherance to the material and the cerebral. I am much more concerned about discovering the meanings and values of different aspects of our lives for the purpose of appreciating and understanding creation instead of picking at every little topic as if it was a festering sore.

Thanks for closing your mind and avoiding any discussion of anything outside of the box.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Caligastia
At this particular point, although I appreciate your comments, I am growing weary of the limitless tit-for-tat cerebralisms and apparent acceptance of current scientific knowledge as being the final arbitor of who what and why.

How awful. I accepted proven things over The Book Of Urantia. I must be a philistine. Then again the Philistines were illiterate. Experimental evidence that can be tested and passes tests is much better than a book with, at best, questionable antecedents and failed predictions where there should be none.

I was hoping to have a discussion that would be mutually beneficial without being subject to your pomposity and absolute adherance to the material and the cerebral. I am much more concerned about discovering the meanings and values of different aspects of our lives for the purpose of appreciating and understanding creation instead of picking at every little topic as if it was a festering sore.

I see, you want a discusion without a basis in experimental evidence or facts. A discusion with little hard thinking. I prefer apearing pompous over vacuos and that book is both. Unintentionaly hilarious also. I am going to use the numbered inspector fairy story in the future. Allready did on the pyramid thread.

Thanks for closing your mind and avoiding any discussion of anything outside of the box.

I think it is you that have closed your mind. I looked at that book. I looked at what you asked me to look at. I found a lot stuff that could pass for briliant science IF it wasn't wrong and it was wrong. I can not help it if you don't don't the difference between a gluon and a meson but they sure should have managed not to combine the two and mess it so badly if they had special knowledge from people with a vastly greater understanding than we do.

IF the nucleus was held together by a particle with a mass 180 times that of an electron that has a lifespan sufficient to do the job we would have found that particle by now. What we found was the gluon and its massless. They got a fundamental aspect the universe very wrong and there is no way they could be that far off if the source was as claimed.

Its not pompous to point out ignorance. It is pompous to call me close minded for not being blind and ingorant.

I figured you couldn't handle a dose of reality but there was always the possibility. You failed the reality check. You prefer fantasy instead. I like fantasy when its labeled that way. Not when its trying to claim some profound knowledge that just isn't there.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Caligastia
At this particular point, although I appreciate your comments, I am growing weary of the limitless tit-for-tat cerebralisms and apparent acceptance of current scientific knowledge as being the final arbitor of who what and why.

I was hoping to have a discussion that would be mutually beneficial without being subject to your pomposity and absolute adherance to the material and the cerebral. I am much more concerned about discovering the meanings and values of different aspects of our lives for the purpose of appreciating and understanding creation instead of picking at every little topic as if it was a festering sore.

Thanks for closing your mind and avoiding any discussion of anything outside of the box.

Caligastia grows weary, just as all others have in infactual defiance of Ethelred's emperical science. Offering to "call it a draw" is the biggest cop-out there is.

You know, i never thought anyone could be more deluded than a creationist, but i was wrong. Falling back to the "closed mind" accusation is the typical response, and the last parting shot of someone supporting a factless argument.

What is always, and will always be the downfall of unverifiable claims, is the future, as the future always renders such claims obsolete. Until such claims are made with future science, they will always fail the test of time.

Being required to read their entire texts in order to refute it would require reading of everything that has ever been written to be read. The onus is on the writer to justify their claims, not the other way around.

It's funny that it's the deluded that always accuse others of being closed-minded

[Ethelred]

It's funny that it's the deluded that always accuse others of being closed-minded

I asked for something that could support the claims. He pointed to a site that made assertions about scientific proof. I looked at it. It was loaded with errors both subtle and scientificly unrecoverable.

Claiming a prediction in 1935 when Urantia wasn't published till 1955 and had clearly been gone over by a commitee for the intervening 20 years isn't exactly a subtle error except for the way they ignored the intervening 20 years. I guess pointing that out qualifies as being pompous and having a closed mind. Instead of showing mistakes on my part Cal just resorted to personal insults that are unwarranted and unjustifiable.

We don't know everything. But we do know somethings with a high degree of reliability. There is no way that book is more right on the creation of the planets than modern science is. Its just plain impossible for a nebula to draw mass out of the Sun. Yet Urantia makes that claim and a pretense of using our allegedly primitive concepts won't cover the error. The concepts were available in 1955 AND in 1935. A passing high density mass could do it but not a low density nebula. Did Cal address this blatant error in Urantia. No he attacked me as person.

Any time Caligastia wants an honest debate he was welcome to one. He can attack what I write all he likes but calling me closed minded while wearing blinders and screeming to shut out any opposing views is not debate nor was it honest. I am aware that such a debate can be time consuming and simply admitting that it would take too much time is accepatble. That garbage that Cal responded with is not.

Well at least he didn't claim I was going to Hell.