Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[modest]

What are the odds of being completely wrong all the time? 100% ?

 

Which brings up another good point. There are so many ways to be subjective about this. It is conformational bias to the nth degree. What are we saying is correct about urantia today? So far, radioactive dating and the big bang have been thrown out the window.

 

Did those make the near-perfect prediction list? We can change the results by subjectively saying something was not widely accepted at the time of Urantia's writing - when in fact, it may have been good theory of the time. All subjective. There is no way to assign a proper probability to such a thing. Let alone, calculate a subjective list of them with subjective results today.

 

~modest

[Caligastia]

Although there are some clever and down right funny things I could say right now, I'll just let them go. All I'm saying is: I think it's a bit odd we have to get out our compound sentence diagram to discover the true meaning of something my 7 year old nephew could understand. If there isn't motive or bias behind that then I'm the one...

 

Yeah, I'll let that go.

 

~modest (censoring himself)

 

I'd say your username is about as applicable to your actual personality as if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decided on the handle "Mr Fun".

[modest]

I'd say your username is about as applicable to your actual personality as if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decided on the handle "Mr Fun".

 

And now you're ripping on the Muslims :rolleyes:

 

EDIT:

 

I should point out I understand you didn't mean it that way. It's a play on the "modest" thing - in case you didn't get that. Damn it! I was trying to censor myself.

[Caligastia]

This assumes that the Book Of Urantia has predicted scientific theories correctly, so far I have seen absolutely no evidence of this. So far the Book of Urantia has scored zero in this category. What are the odds of being completely wrong all the time? 100% ?

 

 

I understand that the link Majeston provided isn't working for you. Take a look at the "Garden of Eden" one I posted.

 

 

Urantia News - Verifying Science and History in The Urantia Book

[Moontanman]

Which brings up another good point. There are so many ways to be subjective about this. It is conformational bias to the nth degree. What are we saying is correct about urantia today? So far, radioactive dating and the big bang have been thrown out the window.

 

Did those make the near-perfect prediction list? We can change the results by subjectively saying something was not widely accepted at the time of Urantia's writing - when in fact, it may have been good theory of the time. All subjective. There is no way to assign a proper probability to such a thing. Let alone, calculate a subjective list of them with subjective results today.

 

~modest

 

Don't forget spectra analysis, toss out those three and you can say almost anything you want about the universe and not worry about being reveled as false.

[Caligastia]

And now you're ripping on the Muslims :rolleyes:

 

EDIT:

 

I should point out I understand you didn't mean it that way. It's a play on the "modest" thing - in case you didn't get that. Damn it! I was trying to censor myself.

 

Heheh...you just destroyed what little comedic value your reply originally had.

[Moontanman]

I understand that the link Majeston provided isn't working for you. Take a look at the "Garden of Eden" one I posted.

 

 

Urantia News - Verifying Science and History in The Urantia Book

 

So you think that the garden of Eden some how props up your book? The Garden of Eden is an old fable, every ancient society on the Earth has told this myth in some form or another. You are really grasping at straws for this one. For the description in the book of urantia to be useful you would first have to assume the legend of Eden is somehow true, especially the one given in the bible, then you have to suppose a very timely sinking of a land bridge that leaves no physical traces but a flat sea bottom. quite a stretch for any real theory but evidently the book swallows elephants and gags on gnats with equal ease.

[Caligastia]

So you think that the garden of Eden some how props up your book? The Garden of Eden is an old fable, every ancient society on the Earth has told this myth in some form or another. You are really grasping at straws for this one. For the description in the book of urantia to be useful you would first have to assume the legend of Eden is somehow true, especially the one given in the bible, then you have to suppose a very timely sinking of a land bridge that leaves no physical traces but a flat sea bottom. quite a stretch for any real theory but evidently the book swallows elephants and gags on gnats with equal ease.

 

Either you ignored the link, or....never mind, you ignored the link.:rolleyes:

[freeztar]

I'm curious. What do UB believers think of Scientology?

[REASON]

Either you ignored the link, or....never mind, you ignored the link.:rolleyes:

 

I didn't ignore the link, but I fail to see what it proves.

 

It fails to provide any evidence that:

 

1. Adam and Eve arrived.

 

2. They lived in a place called the "Garden of Eden."

 

3. The area shown on the map is in fact the "Garden of Eden."

 

4. The area shown on the map was previously above the surface and has since collapsed.

 

It is just an area that has a remote potential of being the area described in the UP. That doesn't prove that it is.

[Caligastia]

I'm curious. What do UB believers think of Scientology?

 

Can't say I've looked into it...isn't it that wierd space-alien religion? Sounds like a hoax to me...:rolleyes:

[Caligastia]

I didn't ignore the link, but I fail to see what it proves.

 

It fails to provide any evidence that:

 

1. Adam and Eve arrived.

 

2. They lived in a place called the "Garden of Eden."

 

3. The area shown on the map is in fact the "Garden of Eden."

 

4. The area shown on the map was previously above the surface and has since collapsed.

 

It is just an area that has a remote potential of being the area described in the UP. That doesn't prove that it is.

 

You find it unremarkable that modern images of the sea bottom almost exactly match the detailed UB description of the submerged Edenic peninsula?

[REASON]

You find it unremarkable that modern images of the sea bottom almost exactly match the detailed UB description of the submerged Edenic peninsula?

 

Why of course it's unremarkable. It may just be a coinky-dinky. This reminds me of those who are convinced that they have discovered the location of Noah's Ark. I don't succumb so easily to that which appears "remarkable" to someone else, especially when they are not looking at the evidence objectively. You want this to be real. You want the UP to be substantiated. You are not really interested in the truth or reality, you are interested in validating your committed beliefs. This is why you so fervantly defend your faith. It is the same with anyone who has committed themselves religiously and faithfully.

 

Anyway, I completely reject the notion of Adam and Eve no matter where the story originates. Obviously, the UP are just picking up on the Genesis story and running with it in a different direction. But either one of these paths is a dead end. Evidence of human evolution places our origin in Africa, not the Mediterranean.

 

I'm not interested in forming my beliefs around ancient fables and myths that feel good. I form my beliefs about the natural world around scientific evidence and research.

[Moontanman]

Either you ignored the link, or....never mind, you ignored the link.

 

Quite the contrary, I read the entire link, just another rehash of an old fable. Prettied up with a little bit of science to make conclusions that are simply not supported.

[modest]

You find it unremarkable that modern images of the sea bottom almost exactly match the detailed UB description of the submerged Edenic peninsula?

 

Can you please point out where that exact description is in UB. A search of "eden" turned up one hundred and some odd hits and I' rather not do too much searching only to find the wrong reference.

 

Thank you,

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Can't say I've looked into it...isn't it that wierd space-alien religion? Sounds like a hoax to me...

 

My hats off to you Caligastia, you have a better sense of humor than I would have thought!

[Eclogite]

You find it unremarkable that modern images of the sea bottom almost exactly match the detailed UB description of the submerged Edenic peninsula?

I find it remarkable that you think there is such a good match between the two. I don't see it. Perhaps you could itemise the matches in an objective manner.

 

I also found it disingenuous, or ignorant, of the author of the link to pretend that a 1962 Atlas would contain the pinnacle of knowledge of sub sea terrain.