The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[Caino]

Nope.

Neither here nor there. There are Christians, believing their Bibles, that think it is old, and others that don't. What does matter is that 'we' (Urantia) has absolutely nothing but fairytales and NO (nadda) support that it is anything but a 3rd-grade, 3rd-rate fantasy), don't believe in 3rd grade fodder. We, at least, are smarter than that.

You've no idea what I, a bible believer, believe. You can guess, but guess what? None of this has anything to do with the U-rant-ia being anything but a fantasy world.

Who cares!? It has nothing to do with this conversation. One book is history, the other a work of childish fiction and CLEARLY so!

Incorrect.

The Urantia Book is providing us with a much fuller understanding of the history of the earth which the Bible authors were simply unaware of. Genesis is a very young history and by one tiny culture of people on the earth which were writing about themselves.

There is a very long pre-adamic history of mankind. We now know who the "crafty beast" was and that the rebellion took place nearly 200,000 years ago.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you weren't negatively influenced by the Bible

No such thing.

then old earth evolution would be common sense to you

What I believe has nothing to do with it.

Evolution is another fairy tale told by people who hate God, similar to the UB.

because I'm sure you are almost at Lons self described genius level.

I'm glad you think so highly of me, though I hate to burst your bubble, because I'm just a truck driver who grew up in a good Christian home, and went to good Christian schools, but only graduated high school and not college.

And Lon, as far as I'm aware, does in fact have degrees in certain areas of study. He's certainly more learned than I am when it comes to some things.

The doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture forces you to deny scientific facts.

Because you say so?

Sorry, that's not the case.

What I deny are fairy tales that are presented as fact despite strong evidence to the contrary. Such as evolution. Such as the UB.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Urantia Book is

A fairy tale.

providing us with a much fuller understanding of the history of the earth

False.

which the Bible authors were simply unaware of.

Because they had the true history, revealed directly to them by God.

Genesis is a very young history and by one tiny culture of people on the earth which were writing about themselves.

And yet, as I linked to previously, nearly every culture in the world has some sort of flood myth or cataclysmic event in their history.

There is a very long pre-adamic history of mankind.

Sorry, but there's not.

Adam was the first man God created.

We now know who the "crafty beast" was and that the rebellion took place nearly 200,000 years ago.

More fairy tale.

 

[Lon]

The Urantia Book is providing us with a much fuller understanding of the history of the earth which the Bible authors were simply unaware of.

Er, begging. The Bible didn't 'need' to include secular data that is rife in the "only (interested in what is) natural" book called Urantia.

Genesis is a very young history and by one tiny culture of people on the earth which were writing about themselves

There is a very long pre-adamic history of mankind. We now know who the "crafty beast" was and that the rebellion took place nearly 200,000 years ago.

Speculation on your part. You cannot 'know' a speculation, Caino : plain: You continue to show yourself incapable for actual discussion and debate.

If you weren't negatively influenced by the Bible then old earth evolution would be common sense to you because I'm sure you are almost at Lons self described genius level.

See, if YOU were at a genius level, or even somewhat below, you'd recognize that 'because' is misplaced here. While you were 'trying/attempting' a backhanded comment, it comes back against you. As with above, it shows you are not actually 'capable' for this discussion/debate.

The doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture forces you to deny scientific facts.

Inerrancy does not, for any such thing. Science doesn't deal in 'facts' It deals in best's and better's. For instance: we have 'better' treatments for cancer but are looking for something better than chemo and radiation. Some of it includes, at present, immunotherapy which 'science' believes is 'better' but we haven't reached 'best' yet. Even when we do, it will never rule out something better because science isn't interested in that. It is simply interested in what is better and best for what works and what makes sense. Right now, many scientists believe an old earth and universe is the 'best' explanation of what they observe YET they admit that 'they weren't there.' There is no empirical way but to estimate such old ages.

Point: You are being unreasonable again. You are making a comparison that doesn't add up or work. You assume, therefore, that the Bible cannot be true (false) and that science cannot be wrong (incorrect on two points: that science is this staunch nor that findings in science are this definitive).

Another example: We (the U.S.A) figured out how to get to the moon. It is not the ONLY way to get to the moon. It is just 1 (one) way that we know works. There is no empirical truth you can claim other than "we/astronauts went to the moon." There is nothing more than you could say other than "Some scientists have observed and calculated that the universe is x-years old." You cannot, however, from a scientific perspective say "The universe is 5 billion years old." Such is falsifiable on a general disagreement even by other scientists.

Point: Therefore, you are abusing science with such falsifiable proclamations.

 

[Lon]

I'm glad you think so highly of me, though I hate to burst your bubble, because I'm just a truck driver who grew up in a good Christian home, and went to good Christian schools, but only graduated high school and not college.

And Lon, as far as I'm aware, does in fact have degrees in certain areas of study. He's certainly more learned than I am when it comes to some things.

Well, I've told you that you have a good head for years, so its nice to have another confirm what I've been saying

 

[Caino]

Er, begging. The Bible didn't 'need' to include secular data that is rife in the "only (interested in what is) natural" book called Urantia.


Speculation on your part. You cannot 'know' a speculation, Caino : plain: You continue to show yourself incapable for actual discussion and debate.

See, if YOU were at a genius level, or even somewhat below, you'd recognize that 'because' is misplaced here. While you were 'trying/attempting' a backhanded comment, it comes back against you. As with above, it shows you are not actually 'capable' for this discussion/debate.

Inerrancy does not, for any such thing. Science doesn't deal in 'facts' It deals in best's and better's. For instance: we have 'better' treatments for cancer but are looking for something better than chemo and radiation. Some of it includes, at present, immunotherapy which 'science' believes is 'better' but we haven't reached 'best' yet. Even when we do, it will never rule out something better because science isn't interested in that. It is simply interested in what is better and best for what works and what makes sense. Right now, many scientists believe an old earth and universe is the 'best' explanation of what they observe YET they admit that 'they weren't there.' There is no empirical way but to estimate such old ages.

Point: You are being unreasonable again. You are making a comparison that doesn't add up or work. You assume, therefore, that the Bible cannot be true (false) and that science cannot be wrong (incorrect on two points: that science is this staunch nor that findings in science are this definitive).

Another example: We (the U.S.A) figured out how to get to the moon. It is not the ONLY way to get to the moon. It is just 1 (one) way that we know works. There is no empirical truth you can claim other than "we/astronauts went to the moon." There is nothing more than you could say other than "Some scientists have observed and calculated that the universe is x-years old." You cannot, however, from a scientific perspective say "The universe is 5 billion years old." Such is falsifiable on a general disagreement even by other scientists.

Point: Therefore, you are abusing science with such falsifiable proclamations.

Er, begging. The Bible didn't 'need' to include secular data that is rife in the "only (interested in what is) natural" book called Urantia.


Speculation on your part. You cannot 'know' a speculation, Caino : plain: You continue to show yourself incapable for actual discussion and debate.

See, if YOU were at a genius level, or even somewhat below, you'd recognize that 'because' is misplaced here. While you were 'trying/attempting' a backhanded comment, it comes back against you. As with above, it shows you are not actually 'capable' for this discussion/debate.

Inerrancy does not, for any such thing. Science doesn't deal in 'facts' It deals in best's and better's. For instance: we have 'better' treatments for cancer but are looking for something better than chemo and radiation. Some of it includes, at present, immunotherapy which 'science' believes is 'better' but we haven't reached 'best' yet. Even when we do, it will never rule out something better because science isn't interested in that. It is simply interested in what is better and best for what works and what makes sense. Right now, many scientists believe an old earth and universe is the 'best' explanation of what they observe YET they admit that 'they weren't there.' There is no empirical way but to estimate such old ages.

Point: You are being unreasonable again. You are making a comparison that doesn't add up or work. You assume, therefore, that the Bible cannot be true (false) and that science cannot be wrong (incorrect on two points: that science is this staunch nor that findings in science are this definitive).

Another example: We (the U.S.A) figured out how to get to the moon. It is not the ONLY way to get to the moon. It is just 1 (one) way that we know works. There is no empirical truth you can claim other than "we/astronauts went to the moon." There is nothing more than you could say other than "Some scientists have observed and calculated that the universe is x-years old." You cannot, however, from a scientific perspective say "The universe is 5 billion years old." Such is falsifiable on a general disagreement even by other scientists.

Point: Therefore, you are abusing science with such falsifiable proclamations.

Radiometric dating reveals the earth to be 4 + billion years old. The dating techniques can be cross referenced and compared with meteorites and light speed/distance etc. There wouldn't be an issue if you didn't have to compare it with religious claims. Like when non religious scientist work together there is a consensus on decay rates. Nuclear reactors depend upon these conclusions. Only when dealing with religious people do wildly inaccurate claims come into play.

 

[Caino]

No such thing.



What I believe has nothing to do with it.

Evolution is another fairy tale told by people who hate God, similar to the UB.



I'm glad you think so highly of me, though I hate to burst your bubble, because I'm just a truck driver who grew up in a good Christian home, and went to good Christian schools, but only graduated high school and not college.

And Lon, as far as I'm aware, does in fact have degrees in certain areas of study. He's certainly more learned than I am when it comes to some things.



Because you say so?

Sorry, that's not the case.

What I deny are fairy tales that are presented as fact despite strong evidence to the contrary. Such as evolution. Such as the UB.

Well you're wise anyway because apparently driving a truck is where all the money is at these days!

Texas Truck Company Offers Drivers $14,000 a Week​

Texas Truck Company Offers Drivers $14,000 a Week

 

[Right Divider]

Proof is in the earth.

Vague and unsubstantiated claim.

Claims by old holy men were speculation and conjecterummmm.
Science debunks the superstitious claims of religions.

Funny again.

 

[Right Divider]

Radiometric dating reveals the earth to be 4 + billion years old.

No, it does not. I've explained the failure of this supposed "scientific method" many times here. Read up.

The dating techniques can be cross referenced and compared with meteorites and light speed/distance etc.

There wouldn't be an issue if you didn't have to compare it with religious claims.

Billions of years is a religious idea.

Like when non religious scientist work together there is a consensus on decay rates.

They have NO way of KNOWING that those rates have been constant throughout time.

Nuclear reactors depend upon these conclusions.

In the PRESENT, yes. For supposed billions of year, NO!

Only when dealing with religious people do wildly inaccurate claims come into play.

Religious people like you, sure.

 

[Caino]

No, it does not. I've explained the failure of this supposed "scientific method" many time here. Read up.



Billions of years is a religious idea.

They have NO way of KNOWING that those rates have been constant throughout time.

In the PRESENT, yes. For supposed billions of year, NO!

Religious people like you, sure.

You’ve been duped by quack science.

 

[Right Divider]

You’ve been duped by quack science.

You’ve been duped by quack science.

 

[Lon]

Radiometric dating reveals the earth to be 4 + billion years old.

Incorrect. If you were into science, you'd say "Radiometric dating leads us to estimate the earth to be 4 billion years old."
THEN science would continue: "still under investigation." (which Scientific American states). The University of North Carolina (ranked 17th in the world) challenges 'extrapolation theories' calling them less reliable for many reasons. You? Doubling down. The rest of 'good' science? Looking at 'why' and waiting for better data. Poor science writes "4.5 Billion" unabashedly after such a challenge. Any of this have anything to do with U-Rant-ia? Nope. Has no bearing on it or the Bible.

The dating techniques can be cross referenced and compared with meteorites and light speed/distance etc. There wouldn't be an issue if you didn't have to compare it with religious claims.

Or, you know, good science from North Carolina?

Like when non religious scientist work together there is a consensus on decay rates.

Dupes? Nope. It simply means you have a small idea of who qualifies for a scientist. So far? "Only those who agree with me." Frankly Caino, given your proclivity to third-grade writing, I'm not surprised. I'm saddened, but not surprised and you've skirted more important issues regarding your soul and anyone who preaches another gospel.

Nuclear reactors depend upon these conclusions.

Really? Show me? Neither of those links say anything about the age of the earth.

Only when dealing with religious people do wildly inaccurate claims come into play.

Apparently not. Are you given to poor analysis and reporting?

Notice two things Caino:

1) "Educators" agree with you and cry foul (first listed in the last link)
2) Actual scientists, not interested in anything, but, you know, science, are listed after that and there are many. Notice they are scientists.... All of those links....

After that, don't skip the more important issues of men who teach a different theology. You cannot correct God and there are grave issues for those who try.

 

[Caino]

Incorrect. If you were into science, you'd say "Radiometric dating leads us to estimate the earth to be 4 billion years old."
THEN science would continue: "still under investigation." (which Scientific American states). The University of North Carolina (ranked 17th in the world) challenges 'extrapolation theories' calling them less reliable for many reasons. You? Doubling down. The rest of 'good' science? Looking at 'why' and waiting for better data. Poor science writes "4.5 Billion" unabashedly after such a challenge. Any of this have anything to do with U-Rant-ia? Nope. Has no bearing on it or the Bible.

Or, you know, good science from North Carolina?

Dupes? Nope. It simply means you have a small idea of who qualifies for a scientist. So far? "Only those who agree with me." Frankly Caino, given your proclivity to third-grade writing, I'm not surprised. I'm saddened, but not surprised and you've skirted more important issues regarding your soul and anyone who preaches another gospel.

Really? Show me? Neither of those links say anything about the age of the earth.

Apparently not. Are you given to poor analysis and reporting?

Notice two things Caino:

1) "Educators" agree with you and cry foul (first listed in the last link)
2) Actual scientists, not interested in anything, but, you know, science, are listed after that and there are many. Notice they are scientists.... All of those links....

After that, don't skip the more important issues of men who teach a different theology. You cannot correct God and there are grave issues for those who try.

Well yea, if you believe the flood story then you would believe that decay rates are all a conspiracy by science to discredit religion.


In this case the motivation behind fact denial by Bible worshipers is to force the material world to fit the narrative written by the Hebrew authors of the scripture. Its a false hope that some day your belief about a young earth will be validated. It never will.

God doesn't need correcting, he doesn't write books. Believers write and rewrite books.

 

[Right Divider]

Well yea, if you believe the flood story then you would believe that decay rates are all a conspiracy by science to discredit religion.

Your ideas of "science" and "religion" are bogus.

In this case the motivation behind fact denial by Bible worshipers is to force the material world to fit the narrative written by the Hebrew authors of the scripture. Its a false hope that some day your belief about a young earth will be validated. It never will.

God doesn't need correcting, he doesn't write books. Believers write and rewrite books.

No, God does not need correcting... but He does inspire the writing of books. We call those books the Bible. The UB is a cartoon for children.

 

[Caino]

Your ideas of "science" and "religion" are bogus.

No, God does not need correcting... but He does inspire the writing of books. We call those books the Bible. The UB is a cartoon for children.

AIG:

So, Were Dinosaurs on the Ark?​

In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the “clean” animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark.

How Did Those Huge Dinosaurs Fit on the Ark?​

Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different “kinds” of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers” or young adults.

Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals as a maximum number. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind,” Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind,” so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 510 x 85 x 51 feet, with a volume of about 2.21 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of over 500 semitrailers of space.1

Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space).

 

[Right Divider]

AIG:

So, Were Dinosaurs on the Ark?​

So you believe that changing the subject is a good way to argue for the failed radiometric dating idea?

 

[JudgeRightly]

With the evolution of the religion of Judaism

Fairy tale.

the concept of sin and forgiveness became overly complicated and confusing.

How so?

You keep making these blanket statements, but never really give any details.

The institution of Judaism,

"Institution of Judaism"?

To what, exactly, are you referring to?

its applied 613 commandments , blood sacrifices etc was burdensome for the average person.

The commandments are, in fact, a burden. Something that is mentioned by Paul... Yet not by any Hebrew... There's a reason why, but you, someone hostile to the Truth, wouldn't understand it.

Jesus clarified and simplified the issue of sin, salvation and forgiveness,

In what way?

even elevating the believer to being a son of God.

No elevation at all.

Simply adoption.

Rather than annual days of atonement, endless festivals, compulsive rituals and traditions, we are to do Gods will each day and in every part of life.

Well, no. Jesus taught to keep the greater commandments and the least.

After Jesus left, Christianity theorized

"Christianity" didn't exist until about a year after Jesus "left."

Between His ascension and Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus (when he became the first in the Body of Christ), the Twelve Disciples continued to teach what Christ told them to teach.

Your fairy tale, already in tatters, doesn't hold water.

that Jesus had offered himself as a final sin sacrifice,

You mean something that had been mentioned by Moses in Genesis, and by other authors throughout the Old Testament through symbolism?

something Jesus never taught which was a contamination from older beliefs in Judaism.

False.

Like Judaism drifted away from the original teachings of Melchizedek, Christianity managed to drift away and overcomplicate the Gospel of The Kingdom of Heaven.

Again, False.

Radiometric dating reveals the earth to be 4 + billion years old.

Well, no, that's wrong in two ways: Radiometric dating is 1) interpreted to show that the earth is over 2) 13 billion years old (and that estimated number keeps shrinking).

The dating techniques can be cross referenced and compared with meteorites

Nope. The meteorites are simply returning to the earth after being ejected during the flood.

and light speed/distance etc.

The "speed of light" problem has been addressed. While we don't have a definitive answer, we do have a very good theory that fits the evidence and the Bible.

There wouldn't be an issue if you didn't have to compare it with religious claims.

The belief that the earth and universe is old is a religious belief.

You yourself hold it.

Like when non religious scientist work together there is a consensus on decay rates.

Consensus means nothing when it comes to whether something is true or not, because the consensus could be wrong.

Nuclear reactors depend upon these conclusions.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Only when dealing with religious people

You mean people like yourself?

do wildly inaccurate claims come into play.

Very true. Especially when it comes to a religious hatred of God and His word.

Well yea, if you believe the flood story then you would believe that decay rates are all a conspiracy by science to discredit religion.

False.

I believe the Flood happened because it did, in fact, happen.

The fact that scientists who reject God interpret evidence to try to show they don't need a God for the existence of the universe is a separate matter.

In this case the motivation behind fact denial

No one here besides you is denying facts.

by Bible worshipers

We don't worship the Bible.

We worship God.

is to force the material world

The world is FAR from simply material.

to fit the narrative written by the Hebrew authors of the scripture.

Reality is reality, Caino.

Reality is that God created the universe and everything in it in 6 (literal) days. Reality is that God exists.

You and people who reject God inherently reject reality.

Its a false hope that some day your belief about a young earth will be validated. It never will.

It already has been.

All you need to do is look at the evidence.

God doesn't need correcting,

So then why are you and the UB trying to correct him?

he doesn't write books.

Because you say so?

Can He write a book?

And if so, why didn't He?

Believers write and rewrite books.

So what?

God was the Author of the Bible. The men He used to write it were His pens.

 

[JudgeRightly]

AIG:

So, Were Dinosaurs on the Ark?​

In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the “clean” animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark.

How Did Those Huge Dinosaurs Fit on the Ark?​

Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different “kinds” of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers” or young adults.

Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals as a maximum number. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind,” Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind,” so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 510 x 85 x 51 feet, with a volume of about 2.21 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of over 500 semitrailers of space.1

Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space).

View attachment 1071View attachment 1072

Your point?

 

[Caino]

So you believe that changing the subject is a good way to argue for the failed radiometric dating idea?

I didn't change the subject, radiometric dating is an established fact in the real world outside of religious indoctrination. Your denial satisfies you but it doesn't transform error into truth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I didn't change the subject,

Yeah you did.

radiometric dating is an established fact in the real world

No, it only fuels theories that oppose reality.

outside of religious indoctrination.

Says the one indoctrinated by a cult...

Your denial satisfies you but it doesn't transform error into truth.

Mirror. Look in it.