William Sadler never claimed any such thing. Nor was The Urantia Book "channeled." And what does "spiritualistic" mean?

Dave, you really should stop copying and pasting material from hostile Christian sources about The Urantia Book, which you yourself have not read.



There is no such word as "Urantianism."



I know this is an attempt to smear, Dave, associating with the Seventh Day Adventists, but in fact, everyone has a history. Christianity was founded by a Jew or a bunch of Jews. So what?



The above is totally false. Who made that up or why, I have no idea. If you want to know how The Urantia Book came about, here's the story here:

http://www.609g.biz.ht/index.html



It doesn't matter if it "departs from biblical theology." And what is "biblical theology"? 80% of the bible is the scriptures of the Jews. Christianity departs from biblical theology if the truth were known.



It is not.



What are "sticking similarities" exactly? I've never heard of them before.



Martin Gardner is dead, and he himself was deeply flawed.

We are sick and tired of your ism-schism game,
Dying n goin' to heaven in-a Jesus' name, lord,
We know when we understand,
Almighty god is a living man

Courtesy of Peter Tosh a.k.a. The Bushdoctor
A man who was murdered for advocating his beliefs

Peter Tosh was not murdered for his beliefs , but rather for the money his robbers thought he had.

I think saying and doing certain things on stage in front of the prime minister may have had something to do with it and it was made to look like a robbery

Wikipedia says:

On 11 September 1987, just after Tosh had returned to his home in Jamaica, a three-man gang came to his house on motorcycles and demanded money.[13][14] Tosh replied that he did not have any with him but the gang did not believe him. They stayed at his residence for several hours and tortured him in an attempt to extort money from Tosh. Over the hours, as various Tosh's associates arrived to visit him, they were also taken hostage by the gunmen. The gunmen became more and more frustrated, especially the chief thug, Dennis "Leppo" Lobban, a man whom Tosh had previously befriended and tried to help find work after a long jail sentence.[13] Tosh said he did not have any money in the house, after which Lobban and the fellow gunmen began opening fire in a reckless manner. Tosh was shot twice in the head and killed. Herbalist Wilton "Doc" Brown also died as a result of wounds sustained during the robbery. Several others in the house were wounded, including Tosh's common law wife, Andrea Marlene Brown, disc jockey Jeff 'Free I' Dixon and his wife, Yvonne, Tosh's drummer Carlton "Santa" Davis and musician Michael Robinson.[15][16]

According to Police Commissioner Herman Ricketts, Dennis "Leppo" Lobban surrendered and two other men were interrogated but not publicly named.[17] Lobban went on to plead innocent during his trial, telling the court he had been drinking with friends. The trial was held in a closed court due to the involvement of illegal firearms. Lobban was ultimately found guilty by a jury of eight women and four men and sentenced to death by hanging.[18] His sentence was commuted in 1995 and Lobban remains in jail.[19] Another suspect was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.[20] The other two gunmen were never identified by name. It is said that they were killed in a daylight gun battle in the street. [19]

Wikipedia says Christopher Columbus discovered america

The urantia book sounds a bit like how scientology began.

Has anyone seen the South Park episode - secret gold plates with writing on them hidden in a hat that only one man could read - dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb ?
Can't remember the name of it.

If an all powerful, loving, jealous god invented man, then:
A) the knowledge would be embedded in the encoding of the brain/mind and there would be no 'free will' or ambiguity as to who made who, we would be hard wired to do its will regardless of our erratic thought processes. Like insects doing their specific job for their community regardless of any other influences.
or
B) the master would drop in now and then to wave the finger at us, or get the cane/strap/whip, and give us a lesson we wouldn't forget.


If man invented god - gods, then:
A) there would be slight regional variations according to cultures, and environments.
or
B) older stories would mis quoted or forgotten, be re-hashed, get make-overs, get different meanings from different language interpretations, or be eliminated by profiteers of rival stories.

Good film 'the master' Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman

How so? When you read it, what reminded you of Scientology?

If you are interested in knowing how The Urantia Book came about, here's a pretty good explanation, fwiw:

http://www.609g.biz.ht/index.html

Many science-savvy people take it for granted that the universe is made not only of Carl Sagan's oft-quoted "billions and billions" of galaxies, but also a vast amount of an invisible substance called dark matter. This odd matter is thought to be a new kind of subatomic particle that doesn't interact via electromagnetism, nor the strong and weak nuclear forces. Dark matter is also supposed to be five times more prevalent in the universe than the ordinary matter of atoms.

According to evolution's Big Bang theory all matter was flung out into the universe. According to the second law of thermal dynamics (Entropy) the energy used during the big bang is being used up and any expansion is slowing down. Eventually expansion would stop and equilibrium (no movement) will take place. Science has given evidence that the universe is continuing to expand and doing so at a faster rate. Since a creator is out of the question scientists have spent nine decades searching for an explanation. Dark Matter is the latest "discovery".

However, the reality is that dark matter's existence has not yet been proven. Dark matter is still a hypothesis yet some sectors of the science community already assume it is "near" fact. Any scientific theory has to make predictions, and if it's right, then the measurements that are performed should line up with the predictions. Dark matter theories make predictions for how fast galaxies are rotating. But measurements made of the detailed dark matter distribution at the center of low mass galaxies didn't line up with those predictions.

If dark matter does exists and is causing the universe to expand at a higher rate then it has to interact with matter and obey the laws of physics. Stars orbit their parent galaxy in nearly circular paths and gravity is the force that holds the stars in those orbits. Newton's equations predict that the force that makes the stars move in a circular path, F(circular), should equal the force due to gravity on the star, F(gravity), or else the star would fly off into space or fall in to the center of the galaxy (Newton's F = ma).

Near the center of galaxies, Rubin and Ford found that F(circular) was roughly equal to F(gravity), as expected. But far from the center of the galaxies, the two sides of the equation didn't match up very well. These insights reveal that either we don't understand how inertia works, we don't understand how gravity works. Since God has been left out a third possibility is that the equal sign is wrong, meaning that there is some other force or effect that the equation doesn't include. Newton is wrong! So,again, in order to maintain the theory a proven law of physics is denied and an unproven theory (dark matter) now reins supreme.

If dark matter does effect normal matter as we know it then it should be measurable and monitor it's direct effect on regular matter. Other physicists have suggested modifications of the laws of gravity. Einstein's general relativity doesn't help here because, in this realm, Einstein's and Newton's predictions are essentially identical. That a type of matter that doesn't interact with light at all, yet exerts a gravitational pull, permeates the universe. Question: how can a type of matter exist that doesn't interact with light yet exerts a gravitational pull on light?

As in many theories and assumptions put forward to defend evolution no scientific proof exists yet the scientific community will cling fast to these theories (teaching them to our children as fact) until several decades pass and they are found to be without a sound scientific base. But then society continues to live within this deception.

"Dark matter" is a fooler of a term, a place holder for something that is, at this time, strictly hypothetical. In other words, they have no idea what they're talking about. Isn't it strange that modern science supposedly knows that the "Big Bang" happened 13.3097441 billion years ago, give or take 10 minutes, but doesn't know what makes up 94% of the universe?

Evolution is a "science" that's continually being modified for the purpose of showing that God is no longer needed under the guise of science. The more scientific journals I read and documentaries I view the words we feel, we think, we assume, we believe, etc, fill the "proofs" being offered as absolute fact. In one paragraph the phrase it's seems is used and in the next paragraph this new theory is talked about as though it's now fact. Few, in society, see this and fewer yet are willing to challenge them. When someone does they are publicly viewed with disdain in print and public broadcasting but factual challenges are strictly disallowed.

This portrays the philosophy of "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". This, of course, is what the person who believes in creation is accused of but what they will not acknowledge is that the modern educational system has indoctrinated all of society but some are beginning to see major difficulties in the foundational teachings of evolution. Educators and scientists do not want to be asked to respond to these short comings. The religion of evolution teaches, given enough time, "all things are possible, only believe".

I doubt if that's the "purpose," but it does seem as though certain science types will go to almost any length of argument to keep the Divine foot out of the door. But evolution could very well be, and is, imo, God directed and God initiated.

And until Science can whip up some live "protoplasm" from a bowl of inert chemicals, they've got nothing. And they're face to face with that fact all of the time. They know that dead end is waiting for them, the time must come when they will have to come to the conclusion that "God did it."

Unfortunately I can be a little pessimistic at times, though I prefer to think of myself as a realist. I hope we don't unlock these mysteries as while they are fascinating I fear they will only be used for ill, to make some kind of weapon or someone a lot if money as has happened so many times before. I stated on another thread that I admired Trevor Bayliss who invented the wind up radio and torch and gave the profits/patents away so people in the 3rd world could benefit from it. I wish more people were like him

I doubt that will ever happen..science moves foteard, not backwards...the theory is mostly been proven, they've done countless experiments on insects with short lifespan, and seen the changes for themselves...

man created god,of course!!!

there is a movie that came out a few years ago called 'the invention of lying',with ricky gervais.....

it is supposed to be a comedy,but i think that it perfectly explains how the whole 'god' myth was invented.

In cosmology, the Steady State theory is an alternative to the Big Bang model of the evolution of our universe. In the steady-state theory, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.

While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the mid-20th century (though less popularity than the Big Bang theory), it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the Steady State model does not predict. ~ wiki

The original Steady State theory is now considered obsolete but was revised into Quasi-Steady State Cosmology by some of the same authors who proposed the original Steady State model. ~ Rational Wiki

The Steady State theory did not decline because of the weaknesses associated with the theory of continuous creation of matter, but due to its believed failure to produce accurate predictions according to interpretations of new observations.

There is also:
Quasi-Steady State Cosmology
Plasma Cosmology
Variable mass and intrinsic redshift theories

All of the models above are generally known historically by theorists and astronomers. But most of the alternative cosmological models below are totally unknown to both theorists and laymen alike.

Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe
Equilibrium Cosmology
Compton Effect Model
Genesis Continuous Theory
Aether Theory
Universe Cycle Model
Exponential Decay Hypothesis
Steady State Universe
Steady State Galaxy Theory
Meta Model Cosmology
Dynamic Steady State Universe
Aetherometric Model
Big Breed Theory
Contracting Universe Hypothesis
Cosmic Electrodynamic Model
Dispersive Extinction Theory
New Universe Theory
Placid Universe Model
Plasma Redshift Theory
Infinite Universe Model
Regenerating Universe Theory
Universal Cycle Theory
Curvature Cosmology
Dynamic Universe Theory
Infinite Non-Expanding Universe Theory
Recycling Universe Theory
Stellar Dynamics Model
Fluid Energy Theory
The Cosmic Time Hypothesis
The Pan Theory
Ritz-type VSL Cosmology Theory
Dichotomous Cosmology
Stellar Metamorphosis
::SOURCE:: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

Evolution exists, you can see it everywhere you look. Cells do divide naturally. Mutation happens naturally. While mankind knows about DNA we don't have the technology yet to make DNA, hell we only just recently mapped the human genome. We are still exploring, mapping, observing, testing.

Einstein was a creationist. His biggest problem was his insistence the Universe was a static state Universe infinitely. He invented a theory called Cosmological Constant to justify his understanding.

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/lambda.htm

People on both sides of the Creationist/Evolutionist argument cite one or two specific things to prove their sides. They think if the debunk the person, they debunk the theory.
People (in general) have to win. They go to great lengths to prove they are right, even when they don't know, can never know for sure.
The world is not composed of Creationists and Evolutionists. There is a whole range of theories and ideas of which these two are merely a few of the whole.

My own ideas are something completely different. In my head, they make sense to me and that is all I need.
Evolution exists. Its not just something made up to pissoff Creationists.
You can see it in anything from plants in your garden to the specialized dogs and cats in your home. Its all thru nature from fire ants and killer bees to the weeds that grow in a field. Extinctions happen naturally too, mankind doesn't end all species, tho it might seem like we do.

The Steady State Universe idea supports Creationism. The Steady State Universe idea has been proven inaccurate. The Universe is not infinite.
It has a beginning and therefore an end. The Universe may not have started from a single point with a bang but that has nothing to do with evolution.

Actually the THEORY of evolution has not been mostly proven whatsoever .

Why? Because it doesn't exist .

In adelaide, australia a news story came out today: 'scientists' X-ray micro scanned a fossilised fish many millions of years old, (or just over 5000 years old - depending), and determined that all vertebrates including humans were ancestors of that type/era of ancient fish, by looking at the micro structures in its fossilised skull and within its fossilised bones.

I'm no hexpert so don't ask me how, but that's what they said.

Do you think that maybe 'god' was a fish ? Or maybe the ancestor of the bony fish - a notochord, or the ancestor of the notochord, a worm ?

If we were made in 'his' image, and we have been evolving from single cells to worms to humans, and 'god' is older than us, is 'god' a bacteria or amoeba ?