a recent discovery made this week, as published in the journal Nature whereas fossils found in England seem to indicate early man may have settled in England far earlier than previously believed, pushing the date to between 800,000 to 950,000 years ago.

Citing the report published by Ian Sample of the online website Guardian.uk :

“First humans arrived in Britain 250,000 years earlier than thought The discovery of flint tools near the Eastern shores of England, indicate a superiors race of humans”
“A spectacular haul of ancient flint tools has been recovered from a beach in Norfolk, pushing back the date of the first known human occupation of Britain by up to 250,000 years.
While digging along the north-east coast of East Anglia near the village of Happisburgh, archaeologists discovered 78 pieces of razor-sharp flint shaped into primitive cutting and piercing tools.

The stone tools were unearthed from sediments that are thought to have been laid down either 840,000 or 950,000 years ago, making them the oldest human artefacts ever found in Britain…The early settlers would have walked into Britain across an ancient land bridge that once divided the North Sea from the Atlantic and connected the country to what is now mainland Europe. The first humans probably arrived during a warm interglacial period, but may have retreated as temperatures plummeted in subsequent ice ages.”

“…Analysis of ancient vegetation and pollen in the sediments has revealed that the climate was warm but cooling towards an ice age, which points to two possible times in history, around 840,000 years ago, or 950,000 years ago. Both dates are consistent with the fossilised remains of animals recovered from the same site.”

Now, let us compare this with the Urantia Book, Paper 64 on The Foxhall Peoples who lived around 900,000 years ago in the same area of England as described in the Nature article

“The Foxhall peoples were farthest west and succeeded in retaining much of the Andonic culture; they also preserved their knowledge of flintworking, which they transmitted to their descendants, the ancient ancestors of the Eskimos.

Though the remains of the Foxhall peoples were the last to be discovered in England, these Andonites were really the first human beings to live in those regions. At that time the land bridge still connected France with England; and since most of the early settlements of the Andon descendants were located along the rivers and seashores of that early day, they are now under the waters of the English Channel and the North Sea, but some three or four are still above water on the English coast.

Many of the more intelligent and spiritual of the Foxhall peoples maintained their racial superiority and perpetuated their primitive religious customs. And these people, as they were later admixed with subsequent stocks, journeyed on west from England after a later ice visitation and have survived as the present-day Eskimos.”

Here again, an example of foreknowledge of human history written in 1934 by the authors of the Urantia Book not discovered by science until 2010.

Yes! That can be found on the Truthbook website.
I had missed that particular article. But it was interesting to find the article in Nanaimo Daily News, on the more recent finding of the jaw. Their dating is always a puzzle to me.
Geoffrey Bibby, in his book Looking for Dilmun, ran into problems with the bitumen stuff they found in huge urns, buried deep in the ground. They send it off to Aarhus in Denmark to be dated, and were soooooo disappointed with the results. 32-36,000 yrs old!!!!!
Why is it so hard for some of these folks to accept such results? If they are scientists, then accept the findings, even if it means you have to re-calculate and re-evaluate all your fondest theories.
If I believe something is 10,000 yrs old and the science tells me it is actually 300,000, then I need to find more stuff to date, and then accept it. No?

Ego is the main reason why some people can't accept most contrarian facts.

If people are raised in a particular faith all their lives and then something comes along to challenge that belief after 50 years, how willing are most people to even look into the opposing view, much less accept that they might be wrong???

Especially if even considering an opposing or just different view means they have no "real faith"! This is the quicksand to progressive thinking I'm afraid.

Similarly a scientist who has ascribed to status quo theories, with peer-reviewed research suddenly has to admit that his research or conclusions were wrong!

This might also mean he/she loses research grant money!!

No one should be so naive and gullbile as to beleive everything that comes to us of course but scientist and theologian alike have demonstrated a stubborness when it comes to holding on to their own theories/beliefs in the face of potentially contradictory assertions.

The biggest obstacle to progress is the human inability to utter these words "Perhaps I'm mistaken'!!! :)

Yes, Margaret Mead comes to mind. She wrote in a letter to a fellow anthropologist/assistant (?) that they had better not mention certain facts about their findings re some island tribes (forget which one, Samoans?) as that would seriously upset their carefully laid theories. Now that is downright dishonest! And yet, she was very much, and still is, respected.