An Alternative to Darwinian Evolution

[Majeston]

=Merlin....When scientists first analysed comet dust collected by the Stardust spacecraft earlier this year,
..............
.....
Well, there are several ways that this material could have arrived in the coma of that comet.  Of course, the Urantia Papers offer one explanation, but there are still more. 

Microchip Names (T)
Note: As a public outreach effort, over 1 million names were collected and placed on the STARDUST spacecraft,which will visit Comet Wild 2 in 2004. See here for more details.

>>>>>
MIKE D TALLON
SAVANNAH TALLON
EVELYN M TALLOWIN
RICHARD T TALLOWIN
ANNELI E. TALLQVIST
ANNIKA TALLQVIST
MARKUS TALLQVIST
STEFAN H. TALLQVIST Urantian    http://jesusonian.org/firstpage.cfm?linkID=100   Electron model>  http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/adslfor/
SEBASTIAN TALLROTH
ANTHONY TALLTREE
CLAIRE L. TALLTREE
MATT TALLUTO

>>>>>>>>>


URANIUM
DAVE URANO
HIDEKO URANO
URANTIA 
MALLA URANTIA
URANUS
SAILOR URANUS


 

Notice: Stardust was launched on February 7, 1999 carrying the two microchips. Two copies of each chip were installed on the spacecraft (for a total of four chips). Two of the microchips (#1 & #2) are inside the Sample Return Capsule, and will return back to Earth with the capsule in the year 2006. The other two chips are on the spacecraft body and will remain in space forever.

[19Merlin69]

Merl,  while we are at it though I meant to ask you to explain your earlier statement.....

"Unfortunately Majeston, Urantia may say Sudden, but what it describes is Darwinian evolution".

I suppose, what I should have said was, "If Darwin would have been an Intelligent Design subscriber, Urantia would have been his theory".  I apologize (in advance) for the length of this post, but I'm trying to clarify my point.  I admit to finding the story of Urantia intriguing, but before you dismiss the whole premise, read the following section first:

The Urantia Book

Paper 58

LIFE ESTABLISHMENT ON URANTIA

IN ALL SATANIA there are only sixty-one worlds similar to Urantia, life-modification planets. The majority of inhabited worlds are peopled in accordance with established techniques; on such spheres the Life Carriers are afforded little leeway in their plans for life implantation. But about one world in ten is designated as a decimal planet and assigned to the special registry of the Life Carriers; and on such planets we are permitted to undertake certain life experiments in an effort to modify or possibly improve the standard universe types of living beings.

1. PHYSICAL-LIFE PREREQUISITES

p664:2  58:1.1
600,000,000 years ago the commission of Life Carriers sent out from Jerusem arrived on Urantia and began the study of physical conditions preparatory to launching life on world number 606 of the Satania system. This was to be our six hundred and sixth experience with the initiation of the Nebadon life patterns in Satania and our sixtieth opportunity to make changes and institute modifications in the basic and standard life designs of the local universe.

p664:3  58:1.2
It should be made clear that Life Carriers cannot initiate life until a sphere is ripe for the inauguration of the evolutionary cycle. Neither can we provide for a more rapid life development than can be supported and accommodated by the physical progress of the planet.

p664:4  58:1.3
The Satania Life Carriers had projected a sodium chloride pattern of life; therefore no steps could be taken toward planting it until the ocean waters had become sufficiently briny. The Urantia type of protoplasm can function only in a suitable salt solution. All ancestral life—vegetable and animal—evolved in a salt-solution habitat. And even the more highly organized land animals could not continue to live did not this same essential salt solution circulate throughout their bodies in the blood stream which freely bathes, literally submerses, every tiny living cell in this "briny deep."

p664:5  58:1.4
Your primitive ancestors freely circulated about in the salty ocean; today, this same oceanlike salty solution freely circulates about in your bodies, bathing each individual cell with a chemical liquid in all essentials comparable to the salt water which stimulated the first protoplasmic reactions of the first living cells to function on the planet.

p664:6  58:1.5
But as this era opens, Urantia is in every way evolving toward a state favorable for the support of the initial forms of marine life. Slowly but surely physical developments on earth and in adjacent space regions are preparing the stage for the later attempts to establish such life forms as we had decided would be best adapted to the unfolding physical environment—both terrestrial and spatial.

p665:1  58:1.6
Subsequently the Satania commission of Life Carriers returned to Jerusem, preferring to await the further breakup of the continental land mass, which would afford still more inland seas and sheltered bays, before actually beginning life implantation.

4. THE LIFE-DAWN ERA

p667:5  58:4.1
That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.
 
p667:6  58:4.2
550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.
 
p668:1  58:4.3
500,000,000 years ago primitive marine vegetable life was well established on Urantia. Greenland and the arctic land mass, together with North and South America, were beginning their long and slow westward drift. Africa moved slightly south, creating an east and west trough, the Mediterranean basin, between itself and the mother body. Antarctica, Australia, and the land indicated by the islands of the Pacific broke away on the south and east and have drifted far away since that day.
 
p668:2  58:4.4
We had planted the primitive form of marine life in the sheltered tropic bays of the central seas of the east-west cleavage of the breaking-up continental land mass. Our purpose in making three marine-life implantations was to insure that each great land mass would carry this life with it, in its warm-water seas, as the land subsequently separated. We foresaw that in the later era of the emergence of land life large oceans of water would separate these drifting continental land masses.

6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD

p669:2  58:6.1 
450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred. This metamorphosis took place in the shallow waters of the sheltered tropic bays and lagoons of the extensive shore lines of the separating continents. And this development, all of which was inherent in the original life patterns, came about gradually. There were many transitional stages between the early primitive vegetable forms of life and the later well-defined animal organisms. Even today the transition slime molds persist, and they can hardly be classified either as plants or as animals.

p669:3  58:6.2
Although the evolution of vegetable life can be traced into animal life, and though there have been found graduated series of plants and animals which progressively lead up from the most simple to the most complex and advanced organisms, you will not be able to find such connecting links between the great divisions of the animal kingdom nor between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races. These so-called "missing links" will forever remain missing, for the simple reason that they never existed.

p669:4  58:6.3
From era to era radically new species of animal life arise. They do not evolve as the result of the gradual accumulation of small variations; they appear as full-fledged and new orders of life, and they appear suddenly.

p669:5  58:6.4
The sudden appearance of new species and diversified orders of living organisms is wholly biologic, strictly natural. There is nothing supernatural connected with these genetic mutations.

p669:6  58:6.5
At the proper degree of saltiness in the oceans animal life evolved, and it was comparatively simple to allow the briny waters to circulate through the animal bodies of marine life. But when the oceans were contracted and the percentage of salt was greatly increased, these same animals evolved the ability to reduce the saltiness of their body fluids just as those organisms which learned to live in fresh water acquired the ability to maintain the proper degree of sodium chloride in their body fluids by ingenious techniques of salt conservation.



Like I said, "Sudden", but still evolution (Darwinian style) with a twist.  Essentially they are saying that they adjust the environment and "Poof!" change occurred spontaneously.  They attribute this event to the reason why "transition species" are absent from the geological record.  One problem stands out {starkly} in my mind - the salinity changes they speak of do not translate in the geological record...  Beyond that, what we do see in the archaeological, anthropological, geological and otherwise "evolutionary" record is that mass collapses in environment, atmosphere and population occured prior to each "spontaneous" eruption of life.  This is ommitted from the Urantia story, but would have been paramount IMHO.  I cannot help but think that it was missed in the authorship of the story because it was not known (or suspected) until 1995.  But hey - that's just my opinion.

Hope I have clarified properly.

[Majeston]

=Merl-
Like I said, "Sudden", but still evolution (Darwinian style) with a twist.
......I cannot help but think that it was missed in the authorship of the story because it was not known (or suspected) until 1995.  But hey - that's just my opinion.

Hope I have clarified properly.

Merl,  hi,
That was quick,  thanks.
I just love the way you throw those a priori suppositions of yours into the mix.

I guess this is the point where I have to start doing some of the work which you spoke about  99/1. 

Preparing your response

[19Merlin69]

I just love the way you throw those a priori suppositions of yours into the mix.

I guess this is the point where I have to start doing some of the work which you spoke about  99/1. 

Preparing your response

Come on now - that's not fair!  I clearly stated that it was my opinion, and I cast no dispersions.  I merely stated that it was not included because it was not known.   It wasn't thought of, and because of that, a detailed description wasn't given...  That's one possible interpretation.  Come to think of it, there is really not a whole lot that was included that wasn't conceived already.  But wait - before you blister your fingertips replying in haste - I'm not saying that the book covers only information that was known; I've given up that discussion.  My point here is:  The book brings up relatively few topics that are genuinely "original".  Explanations of things that are completely off the charts as being a whole new concept.  In the areas where this might be debated, such a miniscule amount of information is given, that it is impossible to be used as a prediction or an historical accounting of a vastly superior force in the universe.

All-in-all, I'm just saying that the "Bosses" could have been a heck of a lot more specific if they really wanted to get our attention...  Again - MY OPINION.

[Majeston]

from: Majeston on March 15, 2007, 10:59:18 pm
I just love the way you throw those a priori suppositions of yours into the mix.

I guess this is the point where I have to start doing some of the work which you spoke about  99/1. 

Preparing your response

=Merlin
Come on now - that's not fair!  I clearly stated that it was my opinion, and I cast no dispersions.  I merely stated that it was not included because it was not known.   It wasn't thought of, and because of that, a detailed description wasn't given...  That's one possible interpretation.  Come to think of it, there is really not a whole lot that was included that wasn't conceived already.  But wait - before you blister your fingertips replying in haste - I'm not saying that the book covers only information that was known; I've given up that discussion.  My point here is:  The book brings up relatively few topics that are genuinely "original".  Explanations of things that are completely off the charts as being a whole new concept.  In the areas where this might be debated, such a miniscule amount of information is given, that it is impossible to be used as a prediction or an historical accounting of a vastly superior force in the universe.

All-in-all, I'm just saying that the "Bosses" could have been a heck of a lot more specific if they really wanted to get our attention...  Again - MY OPINION.

Merl,
I have completed the background for my response to your Darwin with a "twist" theory and I simply need to put the data
into a coherent reply.  It's not that terribly earthshaking but it does refute your prior assertions and hopefully help to update
your current belief system.

Now,  I know the intent of this topic and I don't really want to get too far afield,  but it is necessary to deal with
some of your comments.  I don't really want to turn this into a Urantia discussion, but I know of no other text
on planet Earth that can shed light on these matters.  There is one quite valuable theory which makes the whole train of thought worthwhile.
Futility.  Let me paraphrase an idea.   What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and loses his very soul?
The gist of this topic began with a theory that life can begin either by accident or a method of delivering life to
a sphere in space by another object containing those minute building blocks or chemical compositions identified by
science which are coincident with life as we know it and define it.  I do understand
that indirectly such theoretical physics,  even though the premise can be in error can lead man to extraordinary leaps
in scientific discoveries and techniques which indirectly can lead to truth.

=Merlin
I clearly stated that it was my opinion, and I cast no dispersions.  I merely stated that it was not included because it was not known.   It wasn't thought of, and because of that, a detailed description wasn't given...  That's one possible interpretation. 

My guess here is that you are referring to your previous statement "........that mass collapses in environment, atmosphere and population occured prior to each "spontaneous" eruption of life.  This is ommitted from the Urantia story, but would have been paramount IMHO.  I cannot help but think that it was missed in the authorship of the story because it was not known (or suspected) until 1995.  But hey - that's just my opinion."

I deal with this idea of mass collapses in my reply which isn't posted yet and I do understand that you are co-authoring a book IIRC dealing exactly with this.  This is where futility comes into play and how Urantia can help to be a guide in preventing it (although,  I can see where even error can produce enormous financial profit from the ignorant.).    Of course since I know you somewhat,  I also know that your integrity is above that.
There is a statement I can refer to ......"One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth. "
If the idea was true and you certainly are somewhat familiar with the minute detail of what these so-called revelators apparently actually do know,  this little tidbit of apparent coincidence certainly would have been included.  It would be perposterous to think otherwise.  I can think of several instances where material that was included which was apparent plagerism by our standards, but,  included a change of a few minor words which made the statements correct.  Additionally there is the instance of what was left out of the record such as the discovery of what the whole world believed to be a valid fossil record but turned out to be a master hoax,  Piltdown man.

For one to surmise that these great changes were in fact preliminary and co-incident to sudden leaps in evolution or mutation,  one whould have to know
what major changes in evolution were the really important ones.  I can do that research for you and show they do not correlate.

=Merlin
My point here is:  The book brings up relatively few topics that are genuinely "original".  Explanations of things that are completely off the charts as being a whole new concept.  In the areas where this might be debated, such a miniscule amount of information is given, that it is impossible to be used as a prediction or an historical accounting of a vastly superior force in the universe.

I disagree.   

Since this exact question has been dealt with I will simply include that reply fully knowing the time period of the reply and also the limitations
of the person making the reply.  By limitations,  I am referring to the natural humaness of the individual;  the technology of the times,
 and from what I can simply surmise that he was not all-knowing of every piece of material that was known at the time in all the various disciplines,
no matter how bright he might have been.  I also want to take into account that you are probably not speaking here about strictly scientific
matters and we both know that this is a revelation about a spiritual realm and not a science text.


In essence Merl we are dealing with your comment and reply # 18,  but I am including #14 or #17  to broaden the topic. This document dates to the late 1950's.  The document was obtained from......  http://urantiabook.org/archive/history/sadcrit.htm

Consideration of Some Criticisms of The Urantia Book
by Dr. William S. Sadler
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticisms answered in this document:

1. Theologians and the seminary professors will never endorse The Urantia Book.
2. The Urantia Book is a revival of Gnosticism.
3. There seems to be nothing new or original about the cosmology.
4. Urantia completely ignores the Biblical teachings about man.
5. Why shouldn't the person who put the Urantia Papers in written English be known?
6. There is no doctrine of sin in The Urantia Book. Neither is there a plan of salvation for lost man.
7. The goal of salvation represents a prolonged scheme of training and even then is indefinite and uncertain.
8. The loving, kind, and tolerant heavenly Father presented in The Urantia Book is not the God of Exodus who saves sinners.
9. The Urantia Book almost completely ignores the prophets of the Old Testament.
10. The Urantia Book is a commonplace hodgepodge of verbiage, just such as numerous automatic writers have produced.
11. The atonement has vanished in The Urantia Book. So has the majestic and jealous God who punishes his people when they go whoring after other gods.
12. While there are to be found some new ideas in The Urantia Book, there is not revealed any startling new institution.
13. The Urantia Book takes away the centrality of Christ in the Christian faith.
14.  As regards science, this book is dated. It presents a very good picture of the way we looked at the cosmos many years ago.
15.  The teachings of Jesus as presented in The Urantia Book can be found in a thousand different books, especially in writings prior to 1930.
16. The narrative of the earlier years of Jesus' life impressed me as being very ordinary, even sophomoric.
17. In my opinion The Urantia Book is a fraud -- a hoax. Those who perpetrated this book are criminals.
18. The Urantia Book contains no new and original concepts. There is really nothing new in its presentation of cosmology, philosophy and religion.


14. Criticism: As regards science, this book is dated. It presents a very good picture of the way we looked at the cosmos many years ago.

On the whole, I think this is a valid criticism of The Urantia Book. Let me read from The Urantia Book, page 1109. "Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.

"Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years, many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now fore-see, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the coordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve."

The science of the Urantia Papers bears the closing date of A.D. 1934. Even if it is now regarded as ten years out of date, it was 15 or 20 years ahead of the times when first presented to us. But even now, the fact of the ultimaton has not yet been discovered, even though there have been several hints along this line in the scientific papers of the last few years.


17. Criticism: In my opinion The Urantia Book is a fraud -- a hoax. Those who perpetrated this book are criminals.

Anyone who would call the Urantia Papers a fraud does not know much about the people who were concerned with the factualization of this unique book. My wife and I had considerable experience with the exposure of mediumistic frauds and psychic humbugs during our earlier years, and some forty years ago I wrote a book depicting our experiences in dealing with these practitioners of the occult.

There was nothing questionable, much less fraudulent, connected with the origin of The Urantia Book. At the first glimpse of such, my associates and I would have forsaken the whole affair. We never detected anything fraudulent in the phenomena spread out over twenty-five years. True, we encountered much we could not explain, cannot explain even today. But there was no deception or other questionable practices.

Neither did the Forum -- more than one hundred and fifty persons who supplied the questions which brought forth the Urantia Papers -- ever detect any evidences of fraud.

No one has ever found a contradiction in The Urantia Book, a book of more than one million words. If your story is fictitious, you just can't go on the witness stand for more than twenty-five years to be examined and cross-examined by more than one hundred and fifty people, and never make a single slip-up. To pass such a test you have to be telling the truth.

It is now more than three years since the book was published; several thousand copies have been distributed which have been read by more thousands of people, and yet no one has discovered a contradiction; not even the severest critic has brought forth such an accusation.

When my son came home on furlough from the Marine Corps to read the Urantia Papers, the first question he asked me was: "Dad, is there any one making money out of this thing?" I answered: "No Son, but there are a number of us who are putting money into it." By the time the book was published we had, in time and money, put in over one hundred thousand dollars. Except for professional proof reading, no one was paid one cent during all the years of the production and publication of The Urantia Book.

But the cry of fraud is an old one. They charged Jesus with being a fraud -- "Are you not Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter' s son?" And they went on to charge that he was in league with devils. Said one minister critic of The Urantia Book: "It unfolds the melodramatic shotgun wedding of secondhand neoplatonized Gnosticism and slipshod Protestant rationalism to sanctified science-fiction and sheer damn foolishness. The bastard offspring of this union is called Urantia. There is no place for it in the house of the Lord."
 
 
18. Criticism: The Urantia Book contains no new and original concepts. There is really nothing new in its presentation of cosmology, philosophy and religion.

In reply to this criticism, I submit 64 concepts and doctrines which are new and original as presented in The Urantia Book, not to mention more than one hundred additional narratives which represent enlargement, amplification, and clarification of existing knowledge.
 

*   The Eternal Son of Paradise: For the first time in human records clearly designated and personally identified.
*   The unique Conjoint Actor: The concept of the Third Person of Deity is both unique and original in the Urantia Papers.
*   The Paradise Trinity: In The Urantia Book the Paradise Trinity finds its only present-day identification and recognition.
*   The Central Geographic Residence of Deity: For the first time the world knows exactly where God lives.
*   The absolute Isle of Paradise: The original concept of Paradise as the absolute of non-deity reality.
*   Multiple Creator Sons: Recognition of more than 700,000 Creator Paradise Sons.
*   Concept of the Absolutes: The concept of the Unqualified, Universal, and Deity Absolutes is original with the Urantia Book.
*   Doctrine of Evolutionary Deity: While I saw an intimation of finite Deity in one of Pratt's books about the time of the coming of the Urantia Papers, I am sure that the concepts of the Supreme Being and God the Ultimate are original.
*   Concept of the Triunities: The Triunities are an original Urantia concept.
*   Havona Universe and Natives: The billion world picture of Havona and its inhabitants is a wholly new and original concept.
*   The Concept of Space: Notwithstanding the theory of an "exploding cosmos," the space concept of The Urantia Book is new and original.
*   The Grand and Master Universes: The overall concept of the Master cosmos is not only original, but it far transcends all previous ideas.
*   The Seven Orders of Trinity-Created Days: While one of these seven orders, the "Ancients of Days," is mentioned in the Bible, the whole presentation is both new and original.
*   The Paradise Sons of God: The story of Magisterial and Trinity Teacher Sons in addition to Creator Sons is entirely original with The Urantia Book.
*   Trinitized Sons of God: The story and technique of the trinitization of divine Sons is unique and original in the Urantia Papers.
*   The Seven Master Spirits: While the Bible makes mention of seven Spirits of God, it is only in The Urantia Book that these Spirits are identified and their work fully described.
*   The Vast Family of the Conjoint Actor: The vast and far- flung family of the Infinite Spirit©?supernaphim, seconaphim, Solitary Messengers are but briefly foreshadowed by the Biblical narrative of seraphim and cherubim.
*   The Universal Circuits: The gravity, personality, spirit, and mind circuits are original teaching of The Urantia Book.
*   Universal Reflectivity - Majeston: The amazing story of universal reflectivity is a wholly new an original presentation of the Urantia revelation.
*   Power Directors- Force Organizers: The whole concept of intelligent and purposive control of cosmic energy is original with The Urantia Book.
*   Evolution of Energy - Matter: While some phases of the Urantia story of the evolution of energy may have been foreshadowed by scientific discovery, nevertheless, the concept as a whole is new as presented in the Urantia Papers.
*   The Ultimaton: At the time of the suggestion of the Ultimaton in the Urantia Papers, I had never heard of such a concept in scientific literature. During the past five or six years, I have noted several different intimations of the possible existence of some physical factor analogous to the ultimaton concept .
*   Origin of the Solar System: While the Urantia narrative of the origin of the solar system includes some features of the Moulton-Chamberlain theory, the whole story is so complete and unique as to make it practically an original presentation.
*   The Architectural Worlds: Worlds made to order of specifications is original with The Urantia Book.
*   Universe Administration: From the inhabited world to the management of the grand universe the administrative scheme of The Urantia Book is entirely new.
*   The Life Carriers: Nothing like the concept of the Life Carriers has ever been suggested to humankind in all past history.
*   Origin of the Human Race: While the Urantia story of the origin of the human race validates doctrine of evolution, nevertheless, it presents such a detailed and unique narrative as to constitute an all but original presentation of human origins.
*   Origin of the Colored Races: The Urantia story of the origin of the Sangik races is the only such narrative in existence.
*   Source and Nature of Personality: While The Urantia Book, like science, fails to define personality, it does designate its origin and gratifyingly portrays its magnificent destiny.
*   The Concept of Thought Adjusters: While the Bible talks about the "true light which lighteth every man coming into the world," the story of Thought Adjusters as revealed in the Urantia Papers is so replete and unique as to constitute a new and original story.
*   Evolution of the Soul: The concept of the origin, nature, and evolution of the soul is original with The Urantia Book.
*   Identification of the Holy Spirit: Pointing out the Holy Spirit as the presence of the Local Universe Mother Spirit is altogether new and original in the Urantia Papers.
*   The Seven Adjutant Spirits: While the Bible makes mention of seven spirits and in Isaiah partially identifies them, the Urantia narrative is so full and unique as to make it an original presentation.
*   Local Universe Sons of God: The whole story of Local Universe Sons is new and original.
*   The Ascension Plan ©? Be You Perfect: While Jesus propounded the mandate "Be you perfect," etc., the unfoldment of the Paradise ascension plan in The Urantia Book is an all but new and original concept.
*   The Seven Mansion Worlds: While the Master alluded to the "mansion worlds," the replete story of their nature and province is both new and original.
*   The Morontia Concept: The whole morontia concept©?the stage between the material and the spiritual©?is new and original.
*   Celestial Artisans and Reversion Directors: Both of these concepts are new in The Urantia Book. The concept of celestial play and spiritual humor is all but new.
*   Concept of Permanent Citizenship: This is wholly original with The Urantia Book.
*   The Urantia Midwayers: While the Old Testament does refer to the "Nephilim" the citation is so indefinite as to constitute the Urantia story of the midwayers as a new and original narrative.
*   The Superhuman Planetary Government: The story of the planetary functions of the Most Highs, the Reserve Corps, and the planetary seraphim is original, notwithstanding the allusion to the work of the Most Highs in the Bible.
*   The Billions of Inhabited Worlds: At the time of the arrival of the Urantia Papers, there was no literature dealing with inhabited worlds other than our world. The idea was new. In recent years we frequently run across speculations regarding other inhabited planets.
*   Clarification of Sin and Rebellion: The unique clarification of sin and rebellion is original with The Urantia Book.
*   Identification of Adam and Eve: The factual narrative of the legendary story of Adam and Eve is original.
*   Clarification of Melchizedek: The Melchizedek story as clarified in the Urantia narrative is really a new and original concept.
*   Concept of the Ages of Light and Life: The fruition of mortal evolution as portrayed in the concept of the ages of light and life is altogether new and original.
*   A Unified History of Urantia: Nowhere else in all the world can you find a consistent and unified history of our world. For the first time we have a chronology of human affairs.
*   Diseases: The Book presents a new and original explanation of microbic diseases.
*   Antigravity: The whole concept of antigravity-is unique and original with the Urantia Papers. Only during the last year has any scientist promulgated a theory of antigravity.
*   Jesus' Birthday: For the first time during the Christian era, we know the real birthday of Jesus--August 21, 7BC.
*   Experimental Planet: The fact that Urantia was a decimal planet©?that the Life Carriers had permission to attempt new features of biologic evolution. This is information not heretofore known on the planet.
*   The Evolution of Religion: While you can read much about the evolution of religion on Urantia, nevertheless, the straightforward story told in the Urantia Papers is unique and original.
*   The Unique Reason for Jesus' Bestowal: The Urantia Book presents a new, unique, and original reason for Jesus' life and death on our world.
*   A Chronological Story of Jesus' Life: The Book presents the only complete story of Jesus' life on this world.
*   Identification of the Twelve Apostles: The Urantia story is the first time the confusion of the 12 Apostles has been straightened out.
*   The Unique Story of Mary: The story of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is unique and original.
*   The Water and the Wine: As far as I know, The Urantia Book presents an original explanation of this supposed miracle.
*   Explanation of Unintended Miracles: The Book presents a possible explanation of numerous unintended miracles.
*   Jesus' Attitude toward Art and Athletics: The Master's attitude toward art and athletics is nowhere else revealed.
*   The Sermon on the Mount: I am, of course, not familiar with all the literature on the Sermon on the Mount. But as far as I know, the interpretation of this address in The Urantia Book is new and original.
*   The Women' s Evangelistic Corps: This story is new, notwithstanding the brief mention of this matter in the New Testament.
*   Rodan of Alexandria: This whole story is original with The Urantia Book.
*   The Story of Abner: The unique story of the head of John the Baptist's apostles is original with the Urantia Papers.
*   David Zebedee' s Intelligence Corps: This entire story is exclusively Found in The Urantia Book

All-in-all, I'm just saying that the "Bosses" could have been a heck of a lot more specific if they really wanted to get our attention...  Again - MY OPINION.

I don't really know that that statement is true Merl.  Consider the development and the inroads that have been made in the last 50 years.
There are quite a few "specifics" although,  they might not exactly be in your own field of interest, [at this time]. 

Regarding "Get our attention" .....
There must be a dozen translations by now,  the book has sold over a million copies just in the US,  google lists 492,000 hits,
the "memes"  have virtually penetrated every area of every discipline,  every art;  every religion and every profession on Earth, 
and it's not even in it's infancy yet. 

One must of course try to put this all into a perspective of what the world was like back in the 30's and really how naive and
egocentric we were.  From the information I have the papers were fixed by 1946 and the contract for publication was entered into
with Donnely in 1941.  This certainly predates much of the publication date of 1955 and much of the information yourself and others
have discovered predating 1955.  I do of course know that "Joe"  has intimated that a few or several  changes were made after that date,  but you can see that a contract was entered into with Donnely for over 2000 pages of text in the early 40's.

1941 fund raising note to Forum members, soliciting funds for printing......http://urantiabook.org/mullinshistory/finance_committee_1941.htm

Letter from Dr. Sadler to Harold Sherman, indicating that permission has been granted to create the plates. December 1941
http://urantiabook.org/archive/history/sadler_sherman122941.htm

Contract for original typesetting of The Urantia Book pdf file
http://urantiabook.org/archive/history/plates_contract.pdf

The Publication Mandate

At long last, permission to publish the Urantia Papers was granted. The Introduction to this mandate reads:

"We regard the Urantia Book as a feature of the progressive evolution of human society. It is not germane to the spectacular episode of epochal revolution, even though it may apparently be timed to appear in the wake of one such revolution in human society. The Book belongs to the era immediately to follow the conclusion of the present ideological struggle. That will be the day when men will be willing to seek truth and righteousness. When the chaos of the present confusion has passed, it will be more readily possible to formulate the cosmos of a new and improved era of human relationships. And it is for this better order of affairs on earth that the book has been made ready.

"But the publication of the book has not been postponed to that (possibly) somewhat remote date. An early publication of the book has been provided so that it may be in hand for the training of leaders and teachers. Its presence is also required to engage the attention of persons of means who may be thus led to provide funds for translation into other languages."

Upon receipt of these instructions, the Contact Commissioners entered upon the task of publishing the Urantia Book and preparation of plans for its distribution.

The Papers were published just as we received them. The Contact Commissioners had no editorial authority. Our job was limited to "spelling, capitalization, and punctuation."

Before the demise of Dr. Lena K. Sadler in August, 1939 she had collected about twenty thousand dollars for the publication fund, and this was used to set type and prepare plates for the printing of the book.



Now,  Merl,  as one scientist to another,  (speaking of Dan Massey) to Merl,  I offer the following
which of course will resonate well with you at least regarding the science du jour 1930's,  but,  of the limited scope of what can be proven versus
what can not or what can not be seen even today.  So,  the real revelation for knowledgable scientists who are interested in science is what parts of the revealed information should be looked at in 2007 and beyond knowing what we do today.  I submit that there is much for "science" to profit from if it is discriminate in what it chooses.  For example Space Respiration.

I only include the relevant parts of the following to this discussion.

Science in The Urantia Book--who, what when, where, why and how

The Fellowship's 2003 Summer Study Session
Dan Massey



In opening this talk I had originally intended to simply say what I had to say, without further comment. On reflection, I decided that you should be forewarned that I am about to question a wide range of statements from and about The Urantia Book. Some of you will find these ideas extremely disturbing. To you I say, think of this talk as a secular critique of the book and the stories that surround it. Think of me as an anthropologist who has disappeared for decades into the jungles of Urantia, and now reports back on some of the strange rituals and beliefs he has witnessed. Some of you will try to invent a point-by-point refutation of my speculations. To you I say, stop wasting your life on foolishness, you’ve missed the entire point of the talk.

When Lee Smith first asked me to speak at this conference, I was somewhat nonplussed by the need to choose a topic. In the past, I have tried to correlate factual statements in the book with the discoveries of science or to expound theoretical statements to see how they might relate to potential scientific discoveries. I decided that I was, after many years, unhappy with this approach to the factual material in the book and needed to reconsider and reevaluate my attitude. In particular, it seemed to me that I was following the path of so many Christian fundamentalists in their tortuous attempts to justify the factual statements contained in the Bible as inspired truths. This was by no means my viewpoint or my desire, and my changing perspective on the book and its sources led me to a new, admittedly speculative viewpoint, which I will present to you today.

To capture the essence of this new attitude towards the book’s “facts” I must briefly recapitulate the history of my own changing perceptions. I will be looking backwards over my own 28 years experience in the movement and over the almost 100 years that have passed since the inception of the revelation.

I encountered The Urantia Book during a personal quest in response to a deeply felt spiritual need for life meaning beyond the secular sureties of science and technology. In the text of the book, I found some possibly correct answers to questions; however, more important, I found a way of talking and writing about emotional and spiritual reality that made these things real to me in a way all formal religions had failed to do. In short, I found the way the book explained things to be far more valuable than the statements the book made.

I did not immediately examine or challenge the “factual” material, including the “scientific” material in the book. I automatically assumed it could not be accurate and would only detract from the rest of the text. I wondered why such material would be in a book like The Urantia Book. As I became more familiar with the book, I found my attitudes towards spiritual and interpersonal realities being transformed by the explanations I read. This transformation has not ceased for the intervening 28 years, and I gladly acknowledge that reading the book radically changed my life and my appreciation of it. Early on in my reading I became convinced that some of the authors of the book were supernatural beings, just as they claimed, and that they were completely serious about what they were saying. I was not prepared, however, to accept the perfect integrity of the text as allegedly revealed. I felt it most likely suffered from deletions and additions by unknown parties. I found it easiest simply to accept what made sense or worked in my experience and to gloss over the rest, most of which was tediously “factual” and not capable of proof, disproof, or experiential realization.

I was fortunate to be able to travel widely, visiting Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and numerous locations in New England during my first few months with the book. These trips enabled me to meet students of the book from many walks of life, with many theories to share about the significance and origin of the book. These theories do not belong to the religion of the book. Rather, they are part of the emerging religion about the book. I was initially interested to determine that the Urantia movement was not dominated by cult-leader figures, who gained power or profit from the respect others accorded the text they controlled.

I learned many stories of the origin of the text, including the various versions put forth by Dr. Sadler and long time members of the First Society. While these stories were somewhat consistent with each other, there were definite aspects that made them seem more mythic than factual. First, the fact that all the information about the origin had been provided by Dr. Sadler and a handful of other people indicated that it could have been completely fabricated to serve some less lofty purpose than promised. On the other hand, there didn’t seem to be anyone in a position to profit from the operation of the movement. At this early time, I did not see how the striving for political and legal positions has tempted so many in positions of “leadership” to skew their loyalties, turning partially from the Master portrayed in the book to serve the mundane commercial and legalistic concerns of organizations.

For many years I avoided making my concerns more public and simply acted as if I believed every word of the book was true and not one word could possibly be incorrectly placed (or abused in editing for publication). The growing body of knowledge concerning human texts that have served as sources for the book, developed over the last ten years by Matthew Block, made this an increasingly hard position to maintain. For example:

I knew the book said its cosmology was “not inspired.” Later, I learned that much of the “science fact” in the book was taken uncritically from human sources. The fact that the redactors did not have a very good understanding of the material they were editing is apparent from some of the errors and inconsistencies in this material.

I learned that Dr. Sadler knew of the extensive borrowings of the book from other sources, since he used and properly acknowledged the same sources in his own popular and professional writings. Yet no one had ever told me that Dr. Sadler knew or reported these things. It seems to have been a closely held secret, perhaps held by the doctor alone. I later learned, however, that Christy once wrote to Jacques Weiss something to the effect of “we know where everything comes from.”

I learned that much of the science material was irreconcilable with well-established findings of modern science. Dates, sizes, locations, in fact all relevant data seems to have been assembled rather casually from contemporary source publications and/or the fanciful human imagination.

As I learned more about the structure of the text and heard more stories about its origin (all first told by Dr. Sadler) it became increasingly clear to me that Dr. Sadler and his close associates could have fabricated any story of the origin of the text that they wished and would have been immune to challenge from the Forum members, who could only accept the story Dr. Sadler told. They could even have arranged for material to appear in the book’s published text that would seem to corroborate any myth they wished to project.

In testing the credibility of a myth it is important to assess the likelihood of it being true, given our knowledge of human nature and the personalities involved. In the case of the book, I found it impossible to think of the various origin stories for the book, as well as the governing documents of the organizations (The Fellowship Constitution and the Foundation Declaration of Trust) as anything other than humanly invented conveniences.

As for what the book says, I found its spiritual assertions, to the extent they could be tested, to be subjectively true and valuable. As for what Dr. Sadler and others have said about the book, I found these stories unappealing due to their incompleteness, inconsistencies, unverifiability, and, in some cases, I feel, distortion to satisfy purely human prejudices. In short, I came to feel that the revelation in the book was, while possibly incomplete in some areas, basically true and good. On the other hand, I came to reject the origin myths so popular among the readership as simple legends that might or might not have a core of fact, but which could not be a useful guide to living with the revelation.

So how does this relate to the “scientific” material in the book? These “factual” assertions are either readily traceable to human sources or deal with matters so remote and abstract one may be fairly confident that either no human source could exist or someone is pulling our leg and actually invented the whole thing like a science fiction tale. Take, for example, paper 42, “Energy—Mind and Matter”. This paper begins with a very high level overview of the nature of material manifestation in the universe and then descends into a garble of an early 20th century college textbook. Then, toward the end, we are suddenly dealing with the abstract and spiritual again. The opening and closing sections could hardly have been written by humans, unless, as I suggested, they were simply faking it. The midsection, however, is for the most part a garbled set of disconnected excerpts from a physics textbook. This assemblage is of such mediocre quality that it must have been prepared by people with no real grasp of the subject matter.

On the other hand, scattered through this miserable redaction one finds such gems as “there are 100 octaves of wave energy,” a statement which flies in the face of practically everything currently or previously thought true of wave phenomena. Is such an inclusion to be taken as a virtually untestable revelation of a physical fact, or as an incomprehensible meander from a line of rigorous logical thought?

Ultimately, the serious student of the book who engages the scientific-factual material is forced to examine a number of possibilities, all of which fail to match details of the origin myths promulgated about the text and/or inserted into the text itself. These problems include:

1)       Absolutely false statements presented as fact.

2)       Questionable or unproven theories presented as fact.

3)       Material obviously copied from human sources presented as original and/or inspired.

4)       Irrelevance of much factual material to the principal themes and topics of the book.

In short, one begins to ask why the book contains so much incorrect information, copied from so many soon-to-be obsolete sources, presented as if it were authoritative, without regard for its contribution to the central content and apparent purpose of the book. At the same time, one must reject the traditional apology of the blindly believing fundamentalist that “the ways of God are unknowable.” Nonsense. God has given man a mind and the power of reason exactly so that he can examine all claims of authority in the light of the Spirit of Truth and the reality of experience. It is our duty to explore the accuracy of all things said in the book and to accept the reality that many of the more factual statements will fail this test.

Revelation, you see, is not necessarily inspired or authoritative. It may simply be affirming for you something you may or may not have already known. We try to accept that The Urantia Book is, on the one hand, an authentic epochal revelation, although we don’t quite know what this means. On the other hand, we recognize that it contains factual errors, inconsistencies, and products of misguided copying and adaptation, all occurring before first publication in 1955. Resolving the dissonance between belief in a revelation and honest recognition of its limitations requires us to reformulate our expectations for revelation itself. No more easy fundamentalism. No. Revelation is no better than the quality of the revelators and the revelatory process which they sponsored. In the case of the factual and cosmological material from The Urantia Book, this appears to be of lesser quality than the more philosophical and/or spiritual discussions.

Let us speculate for a moment on how so much error could have been introduced into the revelation.

We might well imagine that the authors didn’t know any better. If you believe the text is perfect, you must believe its authors were endowed with superior knowledge and intellectual powers. You should find it hard to accept that the authors could be so limited.

Or, we might think the celestial authors felt obliged to insert a lot of misinformation to keep anyone from keying on technical details and, possibly, triggering an unearned technological advancement of mankind. Most people find it hard to think of the celestials as deliberately fabricating a bunch of nonsense to fill the “science” topic.

Perhaps we could understand the situation better if we reconsidered the purpose of the revelators in including “scientific” and “factual” material in the text. I suggest that the main purpose of this inclusion is not to provide any useful information to the reader or student. Rather, it is provided as a “sweet spot”—a point of attraction into the text for the reader who expects such information, but who is not sufficiently analytical or well-informed to notice the unpleasant inconsistencies. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that there are a great many topics treated in the book that have no specific relationship to the central themes, but rather serve as a less demanding entry point for readers obsessed with details, but unready to face the demands of living spiritually.
......

http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/sss03_massey.htm

[Majeston]

=Merl-
Like I said, "Sudden", but still evolution (Darwinian style) with a twist.  Essentially they are saying that they adjust the environment and "Poof!" change occurred spontaneously.  They attribute this event to the reason why "transition species" are absent from the geological record.  One problem stands out {starkly} in my mind - the salinity changes they speak of do not translate in the geological record...  Beyond that, what we do see in the archaeological, anthropological, geological and otherwise "evolutionary" record is that mass collapses in environment, atmosphere and population occured prior to each "spontaneous" eruption of life.  This is ommitted from the Urantia story, but would have been paramount IMHO.  I cannot help but think that it was missed in the authorship of the story because it was not known (or suspected) until 1995.  But hey - that's just my opinion.

Hope I have clarified properly.

***************************************


Respected Merl,

(I like that,  I got it from Rajesh)


My guess is that Darwin postulated something like small mutations,  the accumulation of which leads up to new life forms.
I would also suppose that he imagined one might find direct transition links.  for instance between ape and man,  if that was
the transition.  I haven't read Darwin in many years (too many)  and the last of a similar nature was The Naked Ape by
Desmond Morris,  even that was many years ago.   So let's see if my guess about Darwin is correct and what "science"
looking back now actually says about him.


... One particulary cogent reason why Darwinism cannot be a single monolithic theory is that organic evolution consists of two essentially independent processes, as we have seen: transformation in time, and diversification in ecological and geographical space. The two processes require a minimum of two entirely independent and very different theories.

... I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:


1.   Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2.   Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3.   Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4.   Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5.   Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation.

.............
........
Darwin did not claim that evolutionary change is slow and continuous -- only that it does not proceed by "jumps" in a single generation (what Mayr calls "saltational" change). That is, despite the distortions of some anti-evolutionists, Darwin explictly did not think that evolution proceeds by the production of "hopeful monsters" -- Darwin himself never proposed that a fully-dinosaur parent gave birth to fully-bird progeny. Rather, the change took place in a series of intermediate, perhaps nearly insensible, steps in successive generations. Note that change over a thousand generations of any species appears as "sudden" or "abrupt" change in the fossil record, because a thousand generations is such an infinitesimally small fraction of Earth's history.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

The theory as presented in Darwin's The Origin of Species, I should say, was not new to the world and it cannot be attributed to Darwin. The theory, contrary to popular belief has been around since Aristotle and Lucretius. Darwin's contribution is that he gathered indisputable evidence, and he set forth a theory on how evolution works, the theory of natural selection. Darwin: "It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapses of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were."9
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Darwin.htm


 
and from Urantia I guess this is the "twist you speak of except that it denies Darwin's basic premise of graduated small changes.......




 p669:3  58:6.2 Although the evolution of vegetable life can be traced into animal life, and though there have been found graduated series of plants and animals which progressively lead up from the most simple to the most complex and advanced organisms, you will not be able to find such connecting links between the great divisions of the animal kingdom nor between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races. These so-called "missing links" will forever remain missing, for the simple reason that they never existed.
  p669:4  58:6.3 From era to era radically new species of animal life arise. They do not evolve as the result of the gradual accumulation of small variations; they appear as full-fledged and new orders of life, and they appear suddenly.
  p669:5  58:6.4 The sudden appearance of new species and diversified orders of living organisms is wholly biologic, strictly natural. There is nothing supernatural connected with these genetic mutations.





OK,  Next case,

You seem to making some large jumps in reasoning and theory which is not born out from the quotations you provided.
For example you state that the "Life Carriers"  adjust (manipulate) the environment  and "Poof!" change occurred spontaneously. They attribute this event to the reason why "transition species" are absent from the geological record..

 I find where it says that.in a way, (the adjust/manipulate part)  but not in the excerpt you cited.
But,  the way you phrase it is troublesome.   Essentially your equation reads  MANIPULATE ENVIRONMENT=MUTATION
That does not seem to be what is stated or implied.  Any adjustment or manipulation seems to be more of a supervisory, protective,  fatherly type of involvement.  Apparently,  once the particular life pattern is decided and formulated,  no further interference of a mechanical nature is allowed.  Maybe I am reading it incorrectly.
 
PAPER 62 - THE DAWN RACES OF EARLY MAN,

*   line 126: Next over this new circuit came the greetings of the Most Highs of Edentia, containing instructions for the resident Life Carriers forbidding us to interfere with the pattern of life we had established. We were directed not to intervene in the affairs of human progress. It should not be inferred that Life Carriers ever arbitrarily and mechanically interfere with the natural outworking of the planetary evolutionary plans, for we do not. But up to this time we had been permitted to manipulate the environment and shield the life plasm in a special manner, and it was this extraordinary, but wholly natural, supervision that was to be discontinued.

**********

PAPER 65 - THE OVERCONTROL OF EVOLUTION, Oct 19 2000

line 47: After the life patterns have been formulated and the material organizations have been duly completed, the supermaterial forces concerned in life propagation become forthwith active, and life is existent. Whereupon the Life Carriers are immediately returned to their normal mid-phase of personality existence, in which estate they can manipulate the living units and maneuver the evolving organisms, even though they are shorn of all ability to organize--create--new patterns of living matter.


*   line 80:

It will hardly be possible to explain to the present-day human mind many of the queer and apparently grotesque occurrences of early evolutionary progress. A purposeful plan was functioning throughout all of these seemingly strange evolutions of living things, but we are not allowed arbitrarily to interfere with the development of the life patterns after they have once been set in operation.

Life Carriers may employ every possible natural resource and may utilize any and all fortuitous circumstances which will enhance the developmental progress of the life experiment, but we are not permitted mechanically to intervene in, or arbitrarily to manipulate the conduct and course of, either plant or animal evolution.

************



PAPER 36 - THE LIFE CARRIERS,

*   line 85: When the Life Carriers operating on a new world have once succeeded in producing a being with will, with the power of moral decision and spiritual choice, then and there their work terminates--they are through; they may manipulate the evolving life no further. From this point forward the evolution of living things must proceed in accordance with the endowment of the inherent nature and tendencies which have already been imparted to, and established in, the planetary life formulas and patterns. The Life Carriers are not permitted to experiment or to interfere with will; they are not allowed to dominate or arbitrarily influence moral creatures.



Ok,  Next case, 

=Merl
One problem stands out {starkly} in my mind - the salinity changes they speak of do not translate in the geological record...

The salinity changes you speak of.  My understanding of this from the context of the quote is that the ocean
became saltier and this caused a mutation in which the organisms developed the ability to regulate their own salinity
content. Also included in the passage you cite is the opposite effect for fresh water creatures.
 What would cause this salinity change in the ocean which you state is not in the geological record?  One possibility I see
is an ice age.  I'm sure there may be more. Let's see. (btw,  i do note that in another post today I referenced the fact that originally
the oceans were virtually "fresh water",  before life was implanted. 

In 1964, W. B. Harland (1) proposed that an ice age of global extent occurred near the end of the Proterozoic Eon. He recognized a worldwide distribution of tillites and associated lithologies beneath strata bearing Ediacaran fossils and considered that these rocks were deposited during surface refrigeration more pronounced than thePleistocene ice age. Debate engendered by Harland's hypothesis continues to the present.
..........
......The demonstration that the carbon and strontium isotopic composition of seawater varied systematically through the Neoproterozoic Era [1000-543 million years ago (Ma); refs. 2, 3] provides a stratigraphic framework with the potential to resolve fundamental questions of tillite correlation. 

Isotopes, ice ages, and terminal Proterozoic earth history-  http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/13/6600


 A global survey of Precambrian evaporites: Implications for Proterozoic paleoenvironments

* Evans, D A (dai.evans@yale.edu) , Dept Geology & Geophysics Yale University, 210 Whitney Ave., New Haven, CT 06520-8109 United States

Evaporites are sedimentary rocks comprising minerals that crystallized from supersaturation of surface waters due to solar-driven desiccation. They, or their metamorphic relics and pseudomorphs, are abundant in the geologic record and document changes in paleoclimate, sealevel, and marine chemistry. Phanerozoic evaporites have been well described and summarized, in no small part due to their role as hydrocarbon seals, as well as sources of salinity in hydrothermal fluids that concentrate metal deposits. Precambrian evaporites are abundant in discrete number of instances but are generally less voluminous; their long-term preservation is limited by subsurface mineral dissolution as well as tectonic crustal recycling. Unlike Precambrian glacial deposits, which have been globally catalogued several times during the past fifty years, Precambrian evaporites have been compiled only partially in a few rare studies. A new, global survey of Precambrian evaporites (mainly pseudomorphs after gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) documents over 100 examples, including ten of Archean age. About 20 deposits have total preserved or estimated salt volumes exceeding 1000 cubic km, and these are restricted to the Proterozoic Era. One of the most impressive episodes of evaporite deposition in the entire geologic record occurred at about 800 Ma, coincident with the onset of Rodinia supercontinental fragmentation. These evaporites are preserved primarily as calcium-sulfates, totalling about 350,000 cubic km in volume. The next major global peak in evaporite deposition occurred in late Ediacaran to Early Cambrian time, totalling more than 1.5 million cubic km of mixed sulfates and halites. These peaks rival the great salt records of the Late Devonian, Late Permian, and Late Jurassic, and the molar volumes of deposited salt are comparable to the current inventory of oceanic salinity.  Questions for future consideration include: what does the removal of this much salinity from the oceans, in these concentrated time intervals, imply for marine geochemistry; and can there be significant biological implications?

Authors (2006), Title, Eos Trans. AGU, 87(36), Jt. Assem. Suppl., Abstract xxxxx-xx
http://www.agu.org/meetings/sm06/sm06-sessions/sm06_U51A.html





So,  Merl,  in the above quotes and I won't even pretend that I understand all of what they are saying,  I would guess that they have verified my premise that
the salinity content during the time periods in question actually is in the geological record.






PAPER 59 - THE MARINE-LIFE ERA ON URANTIA


We reckon the history of Urantia as beginning about one billion years ago and extending through five major eras:

1. The prelife era extends over the initial four hundred and fifty million years, from about the time the planet attained its present size to the time of life establishment. Your students have designated this period as the Archeozoic.

2. The life-dawn era extends over the next one hundred and fifty million years. This epoch intervenes between the preceding prelife or cataclysmic age and the following period of more highly developed marine life. This era is known to your researchers as the Proterozoic.

3. The marine-life era covers the next two hundred and fifty million years and is best known to you as the Paleozoic.

4. The early land-life era extends over the next one hundred million years and is known as the Mesozoic.

5. The mammalian era occupies the last fifty million years. This recent-times era is known as the Cenozoic.

The marine-life era thus covers about one quarter of your planetary history. It may be subdivided into six long periods, each characterized by certain well-defined developments in both the geologic realms and the biologic domains.




I understand Merl from earlier conversations with others that the dates used by Urantia for the different periods are not today the exact same
as those used by science.  For this discussion that is probably irrelevant although the Urantian dates/ per period may be those used in the 30's.

 I do note that in the second study of enormous salinity changes they date it to the period of the supercontinent breakup around 800 Ma.  Urantia tells us that this happened around 600-550 Ma.  BTW what does Ma mean?    I guess it means million years ago.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@



 

= Merl
 Beyond that, what we do see in the archaeological, anthropological, geological and otherwise "evolutionary" record is that mass collapses in environment, atmosphere and population occured prior to each "spontaneous" eruption of life.  This is ommitted from the Urantia story, but would have been paramount IMHO.  I cannot help but think that it was missed in the authorship of the story because it was not known (or suspected) until 1995.  But hey - that's just my opinion.

Hope I have clarified properly.

Well,   
I think I touched on this in another post.  It would seem like your total premise and conclusion is incorrect.  For one thing,  you use the term "prior to each spontaneous eruption".
Apparently there were hundreds,  if not thousands or millions of mutations and only 3 original life implantations affected by any number of events,  but no so-called new spontaneous eruptions such as mutations or wholly new life caused by these external events  even though there may be similarities coincident with catastrophe...
One major change was vegetable to animal,   there were many mutations before that.
One major mutation was the backbone in fish which led to frogs and eventually man.
ANother major mutation was from reptile to bird.
Then we have a change from small dinosaur to placental mammals.
we have mammals returning to the ocean and evolving into whales and seals.
We also have the mutation of the chlorophyll-making ability of plants.
mutation of the spore into the seed.
the development of the ability of the iron in the circulating blood cells to perform in the double role of oxygen carrier and carbon dioxide remover.
development/mutation of "will".
We have the development/mutation of mind
we have the development/mutation of spirit
development/mutation of the "soul".

It doesn't appear Merl that the process of catastrophe is as important as you think,  for example we have this insight early on between stage 1 and 2 .....
"The vast oceanic nursery of life on Urantia has served its purpose. During the long ages when the land was unsuited to support life, before the atmosphere contained sufficient oxygen to sustain the higher land animals, the sea mothered and nurtured the early life of the realm. Now the biologic importance of the sea progressively diminishes as the second stage of evolution begins to unfold on the land."

Then we have a higher stage of evolution/mutation  as follows.....

"When physical conditions are ripe, sudden mental evolutions may take place; when mind status is propitious, sudden spiritual transformations may occur; when spiritual values receive proper recognition, then cosmic meanings become discernible, and increasingly the personality is released from the handicaps of time and delivered from the limitations of space."

Paper 65 is an extraordinary presentation by the life carriers and how they do/did their stuff.   http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper65.html


I hope this reply isn't too disjointed for you to understand my points and I trust that I have interpreted your reply and concerns correctly and
have submitted valid proofs and references or at the least other valid considerations for your theory.

[Boreas]

Hi again!
Just squezing in some metamorph rocks:     

Oldest evidence of photosynthesis

By Paul Rincon
BBC News Online

The rocks from Isua are amongst the oldest on Earth

Scientists claim to have found the oldest evidence of photosynthesis - the most important chemical reaction on Earth - in 3.7-billion-year-old rocks.

Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, algae and certain bacteria convert sunlight to chemical energy.
Danish researchers say rocks from Greenland show life-forms were using the process about one billion years earlier than has previously been shown.
Details of the research are published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

   

• Life may be older and more robust than we thought
  Dr Roger Buick, University of Washington, Seattle

Professor Minik Rosing and Professor Robert Frei, both of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, analysed ancient seafloor sediments in Isua, Greenland, where they had previously found the earliest evidence of life on Earth.

"What this demonstrates is that the Earth had a functioning biosphere before 3.7 billion years ago," Professor Rosing told BBC News Online.

Uranium signature

The researchers discovered abundant quantities of the element uranium in the ancient sediments, which had most likely precipitated out of ocean water.

In a "reducing" environment where little or no photosynthesis is taking place, the elements uranium and thorium would move around together in the ocean as mineral particles.

Map, BBC
But the high abundance of uranium relative to thorium in Isua rocks suggested that uranium had been chemically separated from thorium.

This happens under "oxidising" conditions where organisms are releasing oxygen into the environment.

Rosing and Frei conclude that microbes much like present-day cyanobacteria were converting sunlight to chemical energy through oxygenic, or oxygen-producing, photosynthesis.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis, a form of the reaction that does not produce oxygen as a by-product, is widely thought to have evolved before the oxygenic form.

Professor Rosing does not dispute this, but, he said: "The problem is that one doesn't know how long life was evolving on Earth before 3.7 billion years ago. The geological record more or less stops there."

Professor Michael Bickle, a geologist at the University of Cambridge, UK, said the existence of photosynthesis at 3.7 billion years ago was "indubitable".

'Geological mill'

But Roger Buick, associate professor of astrobiology at the University of Washington in Seattle, US, was cautious about the findings.

"Anything of that sort of age has to be somewhat dubious. Those rocks have been put through the geological mill many times - it would be hard to say that anything you're seeing is primary," he said.

However, Rosing contends that lead isotopes in the rocks preserve an accurate "isotopic memory" of uranium and thorium compositions in the past, suggesting the values are primary, or original.


Isua's shales have metamorphosed since they were deposited

"Minik Rosing knows the Isua rocks better than anyone else. I don't for one minute doubt his data, I just wonder how strong an interpretation you can put on that data," Dr Buick added.

Studies conducted by Buick on rocks from Pilbara, western Australia, establish photosynthesis at 2.6-2.7 billion years ago. But the latest findings would appear to push these dates back by about one billion years.

"The biochemistry needed for oxygenic photosynthesis requires lots of bacterial evolution. If their findings are correct, life was very sophisticated, very early on in Earth history," said Buick.

"For three-quarters of a billion years after its formation, the Earth was being pounded by meteorites. That bombardment only ends around 3.8 billion years ago.

"You would think those sorts of conditions would be pretty hostile to oxygenic photosynthesisers. But life may be older and more robust than we thought."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5055604.stm

[Boreas]

Tatt-ara-taa;


Ancient rocks 'built by microbes'


Odd-shaped rocks in the Pilbara region of Western Australia offer compelling evidence they were built by microbes 3.43 billion years ago, scientists say.

The structures, known as stromatolites, could only have taken the forms they have if bacteria had been present, a Sydney-led team tells Nature journal. The rocks' origin is disputed, with some claiming purely chemical processes could have made them. But the Nature study suggests the biological explanation is the simplest.

"For all these shapes to be formed a-biologically would have required highly unusual and unexpected chemical processes to occur simultaneously in this [one location]," said Abigail Allwood from the Australian Centre for Astrobiology.

"It just becomes ridiculous to support that hypothesis; especially when the biological explanation is so readily acceptable." Ms Allwood and colleagues have made an extensive survey of a 10km (six miles) stretch of land not far from the town of Marble Bar. The area is now well inland but shows clear evidence of having been covered by a shallow sea in the ancient past.

The researchers have detailed an array of unusual sedimentary structures - seven clear types in all. Some look like upside-down ice cream cones; others resemble egg cartons.

These laminated structures have been described as stromatolites - the rock piles that in more recent settings are known to have been built by mats of microbes capturing grains and sticking them together.

But the Pilbara structures, found 30 years ago in a rock formation called the Strelley Pool Chert, are controversial.

Claims for individual microfossils of the original organisms within Pilbara's stromatolites have been challenged; and some scientists prefer an entirely non-biogenic explanation for the structures' creation.

These dissenters believe the piles resulted from the chemical precipitations that occurred around undersea volcanic vents.

Mars strategy

Allwood's response has been to describe the complexity of shapes and explain how these forms can be linked to different environmental niches in a shallow-sea reef setting.

"We have found an ecosystem-scale remnant of the early biosphere. It's not just a couple of individual or isolated fossils or dubious structures; it is in an entire, pretty well intact, section of hundreds of thousands of stromatolites in a reef ecosystem," Ms Allwood told the BBC News website.

"With that we now gain insight into the conditions that nurtured early life - the biological responses to different environmental processes."

The Pilbara stromatolites are not the oldest claim for life on Earth.

Some researchers argue that rocks at Isua in Greenland show the imprint of life at least 3.75 billion years ago. At that time, these rocks were also on the sea bed. Thin layers of black sediment, separated by distinct layers of volcanic ash, look like they could be composed of the debris of ocean-dwelling microbes.
There are no fossil forms, but the nature of the carbon is consistent with the idea it was processed by living organisms. There are no known older remnants of the Earth's surface than the Greenland rocks - which probably makes Isua the closest science can ever get to the first life.

Researchers are keen to trace the story of the first microbes on Earth because it should provide clues in the hunt for possible life elsewhere in the Solar System.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5055604.stm

[Majeston]

Boreas,

This is an error in dating the rocks.

There is no life of any kind prior to 550 Ma

[19Merlin69]

Merl,
I have completed the background for my response to your Darwin with a "twist" theory and I simply need to put the data
into a coherent reply.  It's not that terribly earthshaking but it does refute your prior assertions and hopefully help to update
your current belief system.

Well, let's get to it and see for ourselves...

Futility.  Let me paraphrase an idea.   What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and loses his very soul?

This is a wonderful concept, however, it assumes that a man has to give up everything in order to gain what he wants.  I find this a disturbingly inaccurate viewpoint. 

The gist of this topic began with a theory that life can begin either by accident or a method of delivering life to
a sphere in space by another object containing those minute building blocks or chemical compositions identified by
science which are coincident with life as we know it and define it.  I do understand
that indirectly such theoretical physics,  even though the premise can be in error can lead man to extraordinary leaps
in scientific discoveries and techniques which indirectly can lead to truth.

Are we talking about the same topic, or are you speaking of how Urantia started?  I'm confused.  I started this topic by discussing an alternative to the mainstream theory and I challenge a number of assumptions.  In place of the assumptions - I offer some alternatives that have been individually conceived (as Tom noted), however, I 'string' the multiple alternatives together and attempt to create an alternate path altogether. 

My guess here is that you are referring to your previous statement {snip}

Yes - that's correct.

I deal with this idea of mass collapses in my reply which isn't posted yet and I do understand that you are co-authoring a book IIRC dealing exactly with this.  This is where futility comes into play and how Urantia can help to be a guide in preventing it (although,  I can see where even error can produce enormous financial profit from the ignorant.).    Of course since I know you somewhat,  I also know that your integrity is above that.

Hmmmm....  I'm not sure how to respond.  Yes - I was authoring a book on the subject.  But it was the book that I couldn't bring myself to finish.  I cannot write fiction apparently.  Instead, I joined a group of scientists trying to prove that the theory of evolution (as offered & taught) is incorrect.  My desire is not for financial gain - but to get to the heart of the truth.  "Futility" is not a word that I use in my vocabularly anymore.  There is no futility in asking questions though, and seeking answers.  I seem to disagree with you here.

There is a statement I can refer to ......"One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth. "
If the idea was true and you certainly are somewhat familiar with the minute detail of what these so-called revelators apparently actually do know,  this little tidbit of apparent coincidence certainly would have been included.  It would be perposterous to think otherwise.  I can think of several instances where material that was included which was apparent plagerism by our standards, but,  included a change of a few minor words which made the statements correct.

First - I disagree.  There is nothing in my mind or experience that agrees with the sentiment that you can be "technically right and everlastingly wrong in truth.."  That is philosophy, not science, and it is an attempt to interject morality into science.  Science is not subject to morality though - it does not subject itself to the humanistic ideals of right and wrong, only the imperical laws apply:  Something is either "RIGHT" or it is "WRONG".  It cannot be both, and it cannot be shades of either.  Secondly, I can see that you are attempting to refute by anaology and intimation, and I would rather stick with facts and evidence.   Insinuating that there were other things that "coulda", "shoulda", "woulda" been in the book - but weren't, and therefore is proof that they didn't plagiaurize doesn't work for me.

Additionally there is the instance of what was left out of the record such as the discovery of what the whole world believed to be a valid fossil record but turned out to be a master hoax,  Piltdown man.

The idea that opium was a cure-all for illnesses was popular then too and it didn't make it into the book either.  Are we to take it as proof that "they" were smarter because of its absence?  What about all of the sections that they got wrong?  Do we just ignore those items? 

For one to surmise that these great changes were in fact preliminary and co-incident to sudden leaps in evolution or mutation,  one whould have to know what major changes in evolution were the really important ones.  I can do that research for you and show they do not correlate.

What you are insinuating is that the episodes of mass system depression coinciding with mass extinction and a subsequent rebound in "new life" is anecdotal, and therefore not necessarily evident.  If it were 1 or 2 cases out of 15 I might say, "maybe"...  That is not the case however.  The system-wide depression & mass extinction events preceeded EVERY emergent life form.  A coinkidink does not happen 100% of the time.

I disagree.  Since this exact question has been dealt with I will simply include that reply fully knowing the time period of the reply and also the limitations of the person making the reply.  By limitations,  I am referring to the natural humaness of the individual;  the technology of the times,  and from what I can simply surmise that he was not all-knowing of every piece of material that was known at the time in all the various disciplines, no matter how bright he might have been.  I also want to take into account that you are probably not speaking here about strictly scientific matters and we both know that this is a revelation about a spiritual realm and not a science text.

I have no thoughts whatsoever on the first half of your reply - call me neutral.  But the latter half, and the last line in particular, I find myself scratching my head.  I grant you the "revelation of the spiritual realm", but they spent an awful lot of time trying to intersperse science into the text...  Assumingly to lend credibility to the pages that sought to explain aspects that needed to be understood by the "thinkers" of the world.  It is that part that they failed miserably in.  I have often described Urantia to friends as a great story, but an average attempt at supporting itself.  Unlike so many other religions, Urantia committed the cardinal sin of trying to be too specific - and that's what bites it in the buttocks; the fact that its details are easily refuted on a technical basis.

18. Criticism: The Urantia Book contains no new and original concepts. There is really nothing new in its presentation of cosmology, philosophy and religion.

In reply to this criticism, I submit 64 concepts and doctrines which are new and original as presented in The Urantia Book, not to mention more than one hundred additional narratives which represent enlargement, amplification, and clarification of existing knowledge.

 

  {snip} the first ten are purely philosophical and or religious {snip} 

*   The Concept of Space: Notwithstanding the theory of an "exploding cosmos," the space concept of The Urantia Book is new and original.  Not even on a bad day.  This concept was not only not new, it was old by 1930.
*   The Grand and Master Universes: The overall concept of the Master cosmos is not only original, but it far transcends all previous ideas.  The concept was roughly 25 years old by 1930.

  {snip} the next 7 are purely philosophical and or religious {snip}

*   Power Directors- Force Organizers: The whole concept of intelligent and purposive control of cosmic energy is original with The Urantia Book.  Check with H.G. Wells...  Beyond that, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that this is correct.
*   Evolution of Energy - Matter: While some phases of the Urantia story of the evolution of energy may have been foreshadowed by scientific discovery, nevertheless, the concept as a whole is new as presented in the Urantia Papers.  [color=]The basic idea was over 50 years old at that time.  The "Urantian Spin" was new, however, all evidence points to it being incorrect.[/color]
*   The Ultimaton: At the time of the suggestion of the Ultimaton in the Urantia Papers, I had never heard of such a concept in scientific literature. During the past five or six years, I have noted several different intimations of the possible existence of some physical factor analogous to the ultimaton concept.  Einstein included the cosmological constant in his theory of General Relativity in 1917.  Edwin Hubbell pooped on the idea soon thereafter and in 1925 proved the theory wrong.  However, the term Vacuum energy was locked in the scientific lexicon by 1920.
*   Origin of the Solar System: While the Urantia narrative of the origin of the solar system includes some features of the Moulton-Chamberlain theory, the whole story is so complete and unique as to make it practically an original presentation.  Complete, unique and incorrect would be a better description.
*   The Architectural Worlds: Worlds made to order of specifications is original with The Urantia Book.
*   Universe Administration: From the inhabited world to the management of the grand universe the administrative scheme of The Urantia Book is entirely new.
*   The Life Carriers: Nothing like the concept of the Life Carriers has ever been suggested to humankind in all past history.
*   Origin of the Human Race: While the Urantia story of the origin of the human race validates doctrine of evolution, nevertheless, it presents such a detailed and unique narrative as to constitute an all but original presentation of human origins.
We were discussing these prior four earlier, and they were the ones that I thought left out a lot of detail.  I still think that there should be evidence of varying salinity in the geologic record to coincide with the mass evolutionary leaps...  And I find it difficult to grasp that the "Life Carrieirs" would have used a planetary ice age to perform the task.  That's more than a little drastic.

  {snip} the next 15 are purely philosophical and or religious {snip}

*   The Billions of Inhabited Worlds: At the time of the arrival of the Urantia Papers, there was no literature dealing with inhabited worlds other than our world. The idea was new. In recent years we frequently run across speculations regarding other inhabited planets.  I know that you didn't write this, so I'll have to cut you some slack...  The notion that it was unique to theorize other inhabited planets is simply crazy.  That idea was very old by the turn of the century.

  {snip} the next 5 are purely philosophical and or religious {snip}

*   Diseases: The Book presents a new and original explanation of microbic diseases.  Ah...  New doesn't equate to correct though.  Accuracy of the "new concepts" would have been a boon to this idea - history records a different tale.
*   Antigravity: The whole concept of antigravity-is unique and original with the Urantia Papers. Only during the last year has any scientist promulgated a theory of antigravity.  Incorrect - it was a very big science-fiction topic by 1920.

  {snip} the next 1 is purely religious {snip}

*   Experimental Planet: The fact that Urantia was a decimal planet©?that the Life Carriers had permission to attempt new features of biologic evolution. This is information not heretofore known on the planet.  Another popular theme in science fiction.  The idea that we were a "colony" had been put forth almost a hundred years prior and was common in comic books and sci-fi publications.

  {snip} the rest are purely philosophical and or religious {snip}

I don't really know that that statement is true Merl.  Consider the development and the inroads that have been made in the last 50 years.
There are quite a few "specifics" although,  they might not exactly be in your own field of interest, [at this time]. 

I stand by my comment.  I still see nothing "new" that has turned out to be an accurate prediction of something we have only learned recently.

Regarding "Get our attention" .....
There must be a dozen translations by now,  the book has sold over a million copies just in the US,  google lists 492,000 hits,
the "memes"  have virtually penetrated every area of every discipline,  every art;  every religion and every profession on Earth, 
and it's not even in it's infancy yet. 

Well, Raeliens, Raelian, Ralien and Raelians have a combined hit rate with Google at 500,000 + and "aliens" of every sort have penetrated the mainstream in ways that Urantia can only hope for...  Does that make their potential existence any more likely to be correct?  No - it doesn't.  The Google hit count for "aliens" is 31 million +...  What does that mean?

Now,  Merl,  as one scientist to another,  (speaking of Dan Massey) to Merl,  I offer the following
which of course will resonate well with you at least regarding the science du jour 1930's,  but,  of the limited scope of what can be proven versus what can not or what can not be seen even today.  So,  the real revelation for knowledgable scientists who are interested in science is what parts of the revealed information should be looked at in 2007 and beyond knowing what we do today.  I submit that there is much for "science" to profit from if it is discriminate in what it chooses.  For example Space Respiration.

??  What in particular would you have us consider?  The section, "The Urantia Book -- Part I. The Central and Superuniverses
PAPER 11: Section 6; Space Respiration" is almost unintelligible and one of the most critically lauded of all of the "scientific" portions of the book.  Not only is it impossible to translate any reasonable meaning from reading it, what you can make out has been proven to be incorrect.  Space is not expanding and contracting at a rate of 1 billion years per phase - we can be certain of that.

I only include the relevant parts of the following to this discussion.

{snip} the irrelevent parts {snip}

Let us speculate for a moment on how so much error could have been introduced into the revelation.   We might well imagine that the authors didn’t know any better. If you believe the text is perfect, you must believe its authors were endowed with superior knowledge and intellectual powers. You should find it hard to accept that the authors could be so limited.

Or, we might think the celestial authors felt obliged to insert a lot of misinformation to keep anyone from keying on technical details and, possibly, triggering an unearned technological advancement of mankind. Most people find it hard to think of the celestials as deliberately fabricating a bunch of nonsense to fill the “science” topic.

Perhaps we could understand the situation better if we reconsidered the purpose of the revelators in including “scientific” and “factual” material in the text. I suggest that the main purpose of this inclusion is not to provide any useful information to the reader or student. Rather, it is provided as a “sweet spot”—a point of attraction into the text for the reader who expects such information, but who is not sufficiently analytical or well-informed to notice the unpleasant inconsistencies. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that there are a great many topics treated in the book that have no specific relationship to the central themes, but rather serve as a less demanding entry point for readers obsessed with details, but unready to face the demands of living spiritually.

Wow...  At first I'm stunned to read that this guy actually agrees that most of the science is nonsensical, fabricated and incorrect.  But then I get to the part that makes a very "Christian-type claim":  "..I would go so far as to suggest that there are a great many topics treated in the book that have no specific relationship to the central themes, but rather serve as a less demanding entry point for readers obsessed with details, but unready to face the demands of living spiritually."  Apologetics, pure and simple.  This reminds me of the Young Earth Creationist's argument, "God put the fossils in the ground to confuse man."  Please - tell me Dan Massey isn't really a scientist.  That is the most ridiculous answer I can imagine anyone using...

All-in-all, I am unmoved by the argument and Dan Massey should be ejected from the "talk circuit" he does your case harm - not good.

[19Merlin69]

Boreas,

This is an error in dating the rocks.

There is no life of any kind prior to 550 Ma

Incorrect - there are definitely signs of life prior to 2 billion years before present.

[rockessence]

Boreas, That is amazing about the stone mentioned.

Is it referring to Nuummit (Nuummite)?  I have a few tiny pieces,

Nuummite is a gemstone formed from a mixture of two minerals from the Orthoamphibole Group, Anthophyllite and Gedrite.
 
 Nuummit occurs in brown (including golden brown), green and nearly black with remarkable rainbow flashes. Nuummit is a foliated metamorphic rock and is approximately 3.8 billion years old. It is composed of Magnesium, Iron, Silicon, Oxygen and Hydrogen. By virtue of its age Nuummit is unique - there quite simply is no other comparable material of the same age anywhere on the planet.

 The area of Nuuk where Nuummit occurs is the “Isuakasia” iron ore, the origin of which dates back almost four billion years! Apart from Nuummit, the region also possesses a wealth of other precious gemstones such as the beautiful and much sought after Tugtupite as well as Greenlandite. Both are also almost exclusively a Greenlandic phenomenon. The Isuakasia is situated close to the Inland Ice Cap which is very difficult to access. For this reason (combined with their rarity), these minerals will never become available in large quantities.



Also:

Nuummite
Nuummite is a gemstone formed from a mixture of two minerals from the orthoamphibole group: anthophyllite and gedrite. The name nuummite is derived from the Municipality of Nuuk, where the stone was discovered in 1982. It has since been found in several localities in the outer part of the Godthabsfjord near Nuuk.

Geologically speaking, nuummite is of volcanic origin and was formed about 3 billion years ago. Subsequent influences on the rock (metamorphism) have given rise to the striking mixture of crystals which gives nuummite its unique appearance. Rocks resembling nuummite are also found in a few minor occurrences in the USA, but it is only in the Greenland type that coloration is developed well enough for the stone to be suitable for gemstones.

 

[Majeston]

Respected Merlin,



I need to sit down and take the full 8 count on this round.

But,  as Gov. Swartzenegger said in Terminator,  I'll be back. 

[Majeston]

                                                       
Quote from: Majeston on March 23, 2007, 11:50:45 pm
Boreas,

This is an error in dating the rocks.

There is no life of any kind prior to 550 Ma



Quote Merlin.....Incorrect - there are definitely signs of life prior to 2 billion years before present.


Majeston....... there APPEARS as if there are definitely signs of life prior to 2 billion years before present.

[Majeston]

=Merlin
What you are insinuating is that the episodes of mass system depression coinciding with mass extinction and a subsequent rebound in "new life" is anecdotal, and therefore not necessarily evident.  If it were 1 or 2 cases out of 15 I might say, "maybe"...  That is not the case however.  The system-wide depression & mass extinction events preceeded EVERY emergent life form.  A coinkidink does not happen 100% of the time.

Merl,
Let's discuss this more fully or is that morphully
kindly lay out exactly what you are talking about. i.e.  The system-wide depression & mass extinction events preceeded EVERY emergent life form.
apparently k/T extinction;  Permo-Triassic extinction, etc.