Switch to full style
A forum for skeptics to tactfully voice their skepticism.
Post a reply

Re: Age of life on Urantia

Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:35 am +0000

well there's not much consensus about when the earth could have supported life and, perhaps as a result, not much effort to correlate evidence for early life with what we suspect the environment was like at the time.

seems like i recall reading in the papers that the formation of our solar system was not the "normal", more common way inhabitable planets are formed...but cant locate it at the moment...maybe i'm mistaken. but if that's correct it's going to make it harder for astronomers to find any other examples of planets formed like ours to give support to an "angona" type theory

good article about planet formation issues here:

Monmatia Revisted by Bill Laurune

Re: Age of life on Urantia

Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:24 am +0000

I don’t think this is what you were looking for but I always found the last part very interesting.

(15:5.14) There are numerous other techniques for evolving suns and segregating planets, but the foregoing procedures suggest the methods whereby the vast majority of stellar systems and planetary families are brought into existence. To undertake to describe all the various techniques involved in stellar metamorphosis and planetary evolution would require the narration of almost one hundred different modes of sun formation and planetary origin. As your star students scan the heavens, they will observe phenomena indicative of all these modes of stellar evolution, but they will seldom detect evidence of the formation of those small, nonluminous collections of matter which serve as inhabited planets, the most important of the vast material creations.

Re: Age of life on Urantia

Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:11 pm +0000

The preceding quote (15:5.14) taken together with this:

(15:6.14) The cold worlds which have been built up by the assemblage of floating space material, when they happen to be in proper relation to a near-by sun, are the more ideal planets to harbor intelligent inhabitants.

. . . seems to imply that the most typical inhabited world is nonluminous, not a part of a solar system, and out in space by itself.

When all this is considered, it's interesting to think what the following means, as this quote is found in that section of the book that outlines the Worlds of the Nonbreathers.

(49:3.6) You would be more than interested in the planetary conduct of this type of mortal because such a race of beings inhabits a sphere in close proximity to Urantia.
Post a reply