Neantherdals

[Zoid]

Re: Neantherdals

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/ASIN/0879759550/qid=1028910232/sr=1-22/ref=sr_1_22/102-2327184-4023339

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/08/09/crow.betty/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/ASIN/0879759550/qid=1028910232/sr=1-22/ref=sr_1_22/102-2327184-4023339

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/ASIN/0879759550/qid=1028913886/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-6010855-5856838

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/ASIN/0879759550/qid=1028913886/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-6010855-5856838

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Unverifiable.

Doesnt make it false.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.".

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".

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.

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.

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!'...