Neantherdals

[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.