Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[REASON]

Oh, to be an enlightened one. :)

[modest]

No, actually it might be lucky you, but that all depends on you.

 

Preaching and proselytizing is a no-no, M.

 

Rules for the Theology Forum

 

~modest

[CraigD]

I trust that Cal has answered the question sufficiently. If not, I can look further. There seems to be a paucity of free info on 19th and 20th century India statistics on the web, although I did find this partially available.

Southern India: Its History, People ... - Google Book Search

Neither you nor Caligastia have yet supported your claims that:

• the present-day population of the US is more creative than that of southern India
  
• present-day races are overloaded with inferior and degenerate strains
  
• race intermingling on a large scale would be detrimental
  

The link you provided is to the 1914 book “Southern India: Its History, People, Commerce, and Industrial” makes no comparison whatever to the creativity of the people of any nations, or to any of your genetic claims.

 

The site rule require that you back up such claims with links or references. If you neither sport nor retract your claims, you’ll receive infractions, which may lead to the suspension of your posting privileges.

[Turtle]

From the thread on UB authorship:

... It looks like it was written before modern fossil and genetic paleontology. Turtle would know better what kind of contradictions are there.

 

~modest

 

I Googled 'Urantia hoax' to see where Hypog ranks (4th!) and did some outside reading. Here is a link & some testimony already uncovered on the issue of contradictions in regard to paleontology and geology. The piece contains several other detailed scientific analyses of contradictions in the UB. :doh:

 

...As one can plainly read from the text, The UB makes no mention of any mass extinction at 65 mya, when mass volcanism is supposed to have taken place. Nor is there any indication of a mass extinction event at The UB’s time line for the close of the Cretaceous (50 mya). And the lack of a mass extinction event at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary looms large in The UB’s account of natural history as regards dinosaurs. Evidently, the Life Carrier who sponsored Paper 61 is of the opinion that the dinosaur population hung around long after the close of the Cretaceous, and began to only gradually decline about 35 mya during the Miocene, apparently as the result of underdeveloped brains and competition with mammals (61:2.5,6).

 

A survey of the history of geology will show that these explanations for the dinosaur extinction were, in fact, the prevailing ideas during the penning of the fifth epochal revelation. A widely accepted theory during the early nineteenth century, called catastrophism, related mass extinction events to environmental disturbances that were provoked by sudden episodes of mountain upheaval. But instead of affirming the idea that all inhabitants of the earth had been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods, Darwin was firmly of the opinion that biotic interactions, such as competition for food and space, were of considerably more importance in promoting evolution and extinction than changes in the physical environment. As a result of Darwin’s influence, marked differences in fauna among the different epochs did not elicit much interest in terms of extinction during the latter half of the nineteenth century, and the study of extinction events remained dormant well beyond the turn of the twentieth century.[2]

 

As paleontologists became increasingly familiar with the extinctions that mark the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, various suggestions for modes of mass extinction began to appear during the late 1950s and into the 1970s, from nearby supernovae explosions to meteorite and comet impacts. Not surprisingly, in light of the lack of tangible evidence, they were also all virtually ignored. Not until 1977 did the situation change dramatically when geologist Walter Alvarez discovered a pencil-thin layer of clay at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary outside of the town of Gubbio, Italy. Alvarez sent samples of the clay to his father Luis, a physicist, who had the clay analyzed, and found that the samples contained approximately 30 times more of the metallic element iridium than is normal for the Earth’s crustal rocks. The Alvarez team hypothesized that an iridium-bearing asteroid had crashed into the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous. ...

A REVIEW OF IRWIN GINSBURGH=S ASCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS OF THE URANTIA BOOK--PART II@

[Majeston]

CraigD writes:

Beings with observational knowledge of the solar system equal or better to planetary astronomers of the 1970s, however, would almost certainly have known of and reported Mercury’s remarkable and unexpected 3:2 year:day ratio.

 

CraigD,

 

please support your unsubstantiated claim that these so-called beings would "almost certainly report" such a ratio.

[CraigD]

Beings with observational knowledge of the solar system equal or better to planetary astronomers of the 1970s, however, would almost certainly have known of and reported Mercury’s remarkable and unexpected 3:2 year:day ratio.

please support your unsubstantiated claim that these so-called beings would "almost certainly report" such a ratio.

I’m uncertain what part of my claim Majeston is requesting I support, but will attempt a guess, and discuss two aspects of my claim: that Mercury’s spin-orbital resonance is 3:2, and that someone intending to convince an audience that he had good knowledge of the solar system would not intentionally misstate this data.

 

That Mercury rotates on its axis 3 times for every 2 times it revolves around the Sun is a well documented observation, as is the year this discovery was made, 1965. Both are summarized and references provided in the the wikipedia article linked to in my original post and repeated in this one.

 

The remaining explanation for why “beings with observational knowledge of the solar system equal or better to planetary astronomers of the 1970s” would not provide this data, but rather provide a different, incorrect spin-orbit resonance of 1:1, would appear to be that, despite knowing it, they wanted to keep it a secret from their readers. This contradicts my understanding of the purpose of such lines of the Urantia Book as Paper 57, Section 6, line 2, which I understood was intended to convince readers that the true authors of the book had knowledge of the solar system greater than that of ordinary human astronomers. I’m unable to see how intentionally providing incorrect data on the motion of a planet would server this purpose. On the contrary, had a book published in 1955 made a scientific claim not accepted by most astronomers at the time, which ten years later came to be accepted, I, for one, would be more impressed with its claim to have been written by beings with scientific knowledge exceeding humankind’s.

 

I’m aware that some religious doctrines require their religionists to accept data known to be scientifically incorrect as a test of faith in the doctrine. I’m also aware of religious doctrines that claim their authors have knowledge unknown to humans which cannot be revealed because humans are not capable of reacting beneficially to it. However, I understood that, in parts such as 57:6:2, the UB was not such a doctrine, but rather was simply providing the reader with scientific information.

[Pyrotex]

Welcome Pyro, I was hoping a moderator who would monitor "all" posts would show up. ... It's a new experience for me. I can only surmise that my tenure is destined to be very rocky and very short. ...Don't really see how this applies at all, unless you have already identified the U P's in your own opinion as "blathering idiocy",...

Hi Majeston,

yeah, when we Hypo Mods show up, we show up in herds. :lol: The image of a "herd" of cowboys surrounding a single cow comes to mind. :lol: Of course, real cows are easy to herd. Maybe I should replace the cow with a cat in that mental image. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Wow, that was funny. Okay. All seriousness aside. [ahem] Yeah, the betting in the back room is not currently in your favor. Every time you claim not to understand a Mod Point, your "estimated time to coventry" (ETC) gets shorter and shorter. :hihi: So, if'n you want to stick around, it might behoove you (pun intended--herding cattle, behoove, get it?) to be open to the possibility of learning something while you're here.

 

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that we're biased against you or your opinions concerning PU. :eek: Sorry, I meant UB. :) :) :)

 

:( Okay, you're right, we're all biased against you. But some of us find you more entertaining than others, and so we're gonna cut you more slack than we might otherwise have done.

 

So, how about trying that "learning" thing I mentioned? Trust me, it won't hurt. Much. When I made reference to "my scripture is better than your scripture", I was considering UB to be a "scripture", in the broadest sense of the word.

 

My reference to "internal consistency" came directly from your statement that the UB has "internal consistency"--and your conclusion that that meant something about the validity of UB. I was pointing out that internal consistency NEVER validates content. Think about that for a moment. I'll wait...

 

So, those were my two points, and they had EVERYTHING to do with your posts and APPLIED TOTALLY to your statements about the UB. It would be good if you could see your way to understanding those points. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: You should try assuming that all Mod Points make sense. If they don't to you, you're prolly missing something.

 

Now, as to whether or not I "monitor" ALL posts. Ummm... yes and no. I personally am not interested in this thread at all. I care not a flying flip whether the UB is "real" or "valid" or anything else. I am here because I was asked to help out. My only concern is that folks are nice to each other. So, I will definately assert myself to prevent others from calling you names or using vulgarities.

 

However, if they laugh at your opinions on the UB, you're pretty much on your own. Feel free to call on me for any assistance or explanations, or even a shoulder to cry on. Toodles. And good luck.

 

:pirate:

[Majeston]

Pyro,

 

So, what are we playing now? Good cop/ bad cop?

 

:phones:

 

Actually, I found your reply just what the doctor ordered. Very nicely done. It almost makes me want to relax my defenses, but, I tried that with Modest already and suddenly found myself confronted by Linda Blair in her exorcist role puking up green slime all over the thread.

Naturally, I had to let the "demonic possession" episode run its course.

 

So, if I appear a bit stand-offish don't take it personally, but this and it's sister thread together are over 50 pages long now and basic human decency has been a rare commodity indeed.

One might expect such "stylistic devices" from your basic average fellow skeptical scientist, but when the same flag is flown by the moderators and administrators and when the same are actually leading the charge, it makes one step back and reassess the situation more critically.

 

I can appreciate your position that you don't give a fryin frip one way or the other so, neutrality and a concern that basic common courtesy prevail seems to me a decent compromise and something we can all live with as we move forward and explore the premise of this topic.

 

Of course it won't be as much fun for some without the avenue to express their deepest traits of contempt; derision and ridicule for something they can't possibly comprehend as they grab tiny out of context snippets while waiting in line at the McDonalds drive-thru for their number to come up at the servers window.

 

I'm in the process of responding to CraigD's demands which he enforced with a nasty personal negative rep for me as well as a formal infraction because his unjustified and unreasonable request wasn't responded to in whatever arbitrary time limit he is accustomed to. I'll address those issues in my formal response with him. Certainly I was not going to sacrifice my Independence Day holiday weekend with family and friends to satisfy his expectations.

 

I am fairly new at this site so my "learning" has been restricted so far to the squeaky wheels; the few topics I am subscribed to and a bit of site thread exploration.

I have no doubt that there is much to learn here, but if the definition of learning is parroting back majority accepted theory as if it were fact, then, I might just have a learning disability. I think not though, because I have found some remarkable people here who also do not buy all of the company propaganda. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a very difficult job when you don't have the owners manual. Lucky for me, I happened to acquire one fairly early in life and actually studied and eventually understood it, while my peers were memorizing and parroting the current theory du' jour.

 

So, when someone insists to me that up is down or red is blue, I consult my color chart or compass and then go with the correct solution. The problem with much of science though is that many scientists are using an outdated rusty compass to try and prove what the color is.

 

Thanks again for your participation Pyro, hope you had a good holiday.

[Caligastia]

Unfortunately, I will have to leave these discussions for a while. My spare time at work has become scarce, and my college classes have resumed. I'm sure there will be another lull in my workload at some point, but until then I simply don't have the time that is required to make adequate responses to the thread. Much thanks to the few here who have afforded me some basic respect - the rest I'm sure will take this post as an admission of defeat, and crow about their "victory".:) I'll be back to bump the thread at some point though - I just don't know when.

[Majeston]

Cal,

 

Take care. Your intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable input will be missed. Good luck with your studies and let us all know who hoaxed the U papers when you find out.

 

:)

[Majeston]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majeston View Post

Mullis also pointed out the U age of 4.5 billion years at a time when this was also an unaccepted theory.

 

Quote: Modest-

I don't remember seeing that in paper 57 which is where I would assume it is.

 

 

Modest,

did you find that date you were looking for?

 

 

Striking Coincidences Between The Urantia Book (Copyright 1955) three articles in Science: 309 (2005), and one in Nature, (2005) Kary Mullis Nobel-Laureate

The Urantia Book

 

 

 

 

Urantia Book

 

"4,500,000,000 years ago the enormous Angona system began its approach to the neighborhood of this solitary sun. The center of this great system was a dark giant of space, solid, highly charged, and possessing tremendous gravity pull." "As the Angona system drew nearer, the solar extrusions grew larger and larger; more and more matter was drawn from the sun to become independent circulating bodies in surrounding space. This situation developed for about five hundred thousand years until Angona made its closest approach to the sun; whereupon the sun, in conjunction with one of its periodic internal convulsions, experienced a partial disruption; from opposite sides and simultaneously, enormous volumes of matter were disgorged. From the Angona side there was drawn out a vast column of solar gases, rather pointed at both ends and markedly bulging at the center, which became permanently detached from the immediate gravity control of the sun." (Urantia paper 57: The Origin of Urantia)

[Majeston]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majeston View Post

Sure Modest,

 

This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually appear in the scientific literature until many decades later.

Continential drift was described as early as the 20's. See Alfred Wegener.

 

EDIT:

Looks like it was 1912 for continental drift and

1915 for Pangea

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majeston View Post

some remarkable scientific revelations in the mid-1930s. They embraced continental drift at a time when it was decidedly out of vogue in the scientific community.

As far as I know, 30 > 20. And when a religious claim postdates a scientific claim - well, you just can't say it's a religious claim can you? No, you cannot. Alfred Wegener both described Pangea and continental drift. Unless that happened after Urantia was published - your best claim so far is hollow.

 

This is why I'm asking if Urantia distinguishes between Pangea and Rodina. Can you quote that?

 

~modest

____________

 

 

 

Modest,

 

Have you compared the Urantia account and the Wegener theory? Have you compared the time frame Wegener places Rodina in? Have you explored the depth and scope of Wegener's theory and compared the 2 different accounts?

Have you compared the Urantia account of continental drift/plate tectonics and Wegener's ideas about how they occurred and then compared them to present day geological theory?

 

I think you will find that mcMenamin, who just might be the worlds leading authority on Rodina is on solid ground with his observations. Certainly you wouldn't suggest that McMenamin was unaware of all the published literature on Rodina, Continental Drift; Plate Tectonics and Morivia would you when he published in his book the statements.......

 

"This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually

appear in the scientific literature until many decades later. "

 

"

Clearly we are not dealing here with an orthodox scientific treatise. Nevertheless, the anonymous members

of the Urantia Corps hit on some remarkable scientific revelations in the mid-1930s. They embraced

continental drift at a time when it was decidedly out of vogue in the scientific community. They recognized

the presence of a global supercontinent (Rodinia) and superocean (Mirovia), in existence on earth before

Pangea."

 

 

 

"the concept of a billion-year-old supercontinent (the

currently accepted age for the formation of Rodinia) that subsequently split apart, forming gradually

widening ocean basins in which early marine life flourished, is unquestionably present in this book.

(McMenamin 1998: 174)

 

Orthodox scientific arguments for such a proposal did not appear until the late 1960s, and a pre-Pangea

supercontinent was never described until Valentine and Moores made the attempt in 1970. The Urantia

Corps not only had the age of the formation of Rodinia approximately correct at 1 billion years, but they

also were first to link breakup of Rodinia to the emergence of animals (even if the mode of appearance was

implantation by extraterrestrials). Furthermore, they even got the timing of that approximately correct at

650 to 600 million years ago ("These inland seas of olden times were truly the cradle of evolution").8

(McMenamin 1998: 174-175)

"

[Moontanman]

Urantia Book

 

"4,500,000,000 years ago the enormous Angona system began its approach to the neighborhood of this solitary sun. The center of this great system was a dark giant of space, solid, highly charged, and possessing tremendous gravity pull." "As the Angona system drew nearer, the solar extrusions grew larger and larger; more and more matter was drawn from the sun to become independent circulating bodies in surrounding space. This situation developed for about five hundred thousand years until Angona made its closest approach to the sun; whereupon the sun, in conjunction with one of its periodic internal convulsions, experienced a partial disruption; from opposite sides and simultaneously, enormous volumes of matter were disgorged. From the Angona side there was drawn out a vast column of solar gases, rather pointed at both ends and markedly bulging at the center, which became permanently detached from the immediate gravity control of the sun." (Urantia paper 57: The Origin of Urantia)

 

Majeston, that is an old (circa 1917, Jeans and Jeffery, tidal theory of the solar system formation) that has been completely discounted. Mathematical studies have shown that a close encounter could not have formed the solar system or any planets at all. Gases torn from the sun would not have condensed into anything at all much less planets. This is an old and outdated theory.

[Moontanman]

Modest,

 

Have you compared the Urantia account and the Wegener theory? Have you compared the time frame Wegener places Rodina in? Have you explored the depth and scope of Wegener's theory and compared the 2 different accounts?

Have you compared the Urantia account of continental drift/plate tectonics and Wegener's ideas about how they occurred and then compared them to present day geological theory?

 

I think you will find that mcMenamin, who just might be the worlds leading authority on Rodina is on solid ground with his observations. Certainly you wouldn't suggest that McMenamin was unaware of all the published literature on Rodina, Continental Drift; Plate Tectonics and Morivia would you when he published in his book the statements.......

 

"This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually

appear in the scientific literature until many decades later. "

 

"

Clearly we are not dealing here with an orthodox scientific treatise. Nevertheless, the anonymous members

of the Urantia Corps hit on some remarkable scientific revelations in the mid-1930s. They embraced

continental drift at a time when it was decidedly out of vogue in the scientific community. They recognized

the presence of a global supercontinent (Rodinia) and superocean (Mirovia), in existence on earth before

Pangea."

 

 

 

"the concept of a billion-year-old supercontinent (the

currently accepted age for the formation of Rodinia) that subsequently split apart, forming gradually

widening ocean basins in which early marine life flourished, is unquestionably present in this book.

(McMenamin 1998: 174)

 

Orthodox scientific arguments for such a proposal did not appear until the late 1960s, and a pre-Pangea

supercontinent was never described until Valentine and Moores made the attempt in 1970. The Urantia

Corps not only had the age of the formation of Rodinia approximately correct at 1 billion years, but they

also were first to link breakup of Rodinia to the emergence of animals (even if the mode of appearance was

implantation by extraterrestrials). Furthermore, they even got the timing of that approximately correct at

650 to 600 million years ago ("These inland seas of olden times were truly the cradle of evolution").8

(McMenamin 1998: 174-175)

"

 

I have already shown this theory to have been available far earlier than the supposed date of the urinatia book. Do you think that repeating this stuff will make it true? Why don't you go back to the bench majeston and let the coach call in the first string, your attempts to show anything of value from the book of urinatia is getting quite boring.

[Majeston]

Good evening CraigD,'

 

Hope your holiday was fine.

 

 

I understood that, in parts such as 57:6:2, the UB was not such a doctrine, but rather was simply providing the reader with scientific information.

 

Craig, I believe that you are correct.

 

 

 

Both are summarized and references provided in the the wikipedia article linked to in my original post and repeated in this one.

 

From what I have heard, Wiki is not only not considered a reliable source but that If a student uses Wiki for their reference in many colleges in the USA they automatically receive a failing grade for their paper. Apparently Wiki information can not be trusted and their data changes nearly on a daily basis. This, of course doesn't mean that some of it's data isn't correct.

 

 

A little while ago you joined this little discussion about this "so-called" U hoax and figured you would start your own hoax investigation I guess, beginning with part 3 IIRC. You then apparently read until you found this ERROR regarding the Mercury reference you cited, and added that a truly revelatory Earth shaking phenomenon discovered in 1965 was not included and therefore superior beings would have included this information and they didn't so they obviously can't be superior alien beings and I would guess that logic translates into hoax. Is that about the gist of your thought processes?

 

 

Let me ask you a question CraigD,

This so-called 3:2 rotation of Mercury which is such a phenomenon that should be revealed in a brief passing reference to Mercury, on a completely different topic might I add, is it EXACTLY a 3:2 year:day ratio with the sun?

 

Does it matter if it's off by a mile or 2 each rotation, or an inch or 2, or doesn't that matter? Maybe it is EXACTLY 3:2, I don't know but it might seem strange if it is, but then again maybe that's the physics class I missed, and you can clue me in to the physics of it.

 

I also see in the Wiki article that "Mercury has the most eccentric orbit of all the planets; ". Well, that seems like something the REVELATION should have told us also don't you think? I'm sure Mercury has many other fantastic anomalies that could have been told as well. The point is that it has nothing to do with what has been stated about the slowing rotation of Mercury which eventually will be tidally locked like the moon, just as U stated.

 

Besides this, and in spite of the sentence structure problem, and in spite of many others who think differently about what is being said, you still seem to insist that your interpretation is the correct one.

 

"observations of Mercury’s surface made in 1965 revealed its siderail day to be about 58.646 days vs. its long-observed year to be about 87.969, a ratio of 2:3."

 

sounds a bit like horseshoes to me or something the astrologers would dream up or the Bible codes or maybe the gospel of Judas.

 

 

had a book published in 1955 made a scientific claim not accepted by most astronomers at the time, which ten years later came to be accepted, I, for one, would be more impressed with its claim to have been written by beings with scientific knowledge exceeding humankind’s.

 

 

First, Let's get the date right, the particular paper you are referring to states that it was revealed in 1934. Also we have verifiable information....,

"Although The Urantia Book was first published in 1955, already by 1942 it was fixed and by 1946 the final versions of the 1st edition plates were in the vault of printer RR Donnelley & Sons of Chicago, ready to produce 10,000 copies."

 

Next, Well, let's see if there's anything impressive.......

1.

 

"In large suns when hydrogen is exhausted and gravity contraction ensues, and

such a body is not sufficiently opaque to retain the internal pressure of support

for the outer gas regions, then a sudden collapse occurs. The gravity-electric

changes give origin to vast quantities of tiny particles devoid of electric

potential, and such particles readily escape from the solar interior thus bringing

about the collapse of a gigantic sun within a few days." (UB 464)

 

 

"For the mid-thirties that was quite a statement. These tiny particles that we

now call neutrinos were entirely speculative in the early 1930's and were

required to account for the missing mass-energy of beta radioactive decay."

Ken Glasziou, M.Sc., Ph.D.

 

 

" No tiny particles devoid of electric potential that could escape readily from

the interior of a collapsing star had been shown to exist in 1934. In fact, the

reality of such particles were not confirmed until 1956, one year after the

publication of The Urantia Book. The existence of particles that might have

such properties had been put forward as a suggestion by Wolfgang Pauli in

1932, because studies on radioactive beta decay of atoms had indicated that a

neutron could decay to a proton and an electron, but measurements had

shown that the combined mass energy of the electron and proton did not add

up with that of the neutron. To account for the missing energy, Pauli suggested

a little neutral particle was emitted, and then, on the same day, while lunching

with the eminent astrophysicist Walter Baade, Pauli commented that he had

done the worst thing a theoretical physicist could possibly do, he had

proposed a particle that could never be discovered because it had no

properties. Not long after, Enrico Fermi took up Pauli's idea and attempted to

publish a paper on the subject in the prestigious science journal Nature. The

editors rejected Fermi's paper on the grounds that it was too speculative. This

was in 1933, the year before receipt of the relevant Urantia Paper. "

Ken Glasziou

 

 

CraigD, I'm sure you will recognize the importance of this statement in light of your above assertion. I already provided the link to Kens paper in another post if you would like to check his extensive research, facts and citations. If you need help finding it just whistle. It's located in the section on: NEUTRINOS,NEUTRONS,AND

NEUTRONSTARS.

 

2.

 

TYCHO BRAHE'S NOVA OF 1572

 

 

The explosion of a supernova in 1572 was a brilliant spectacle visible in broad daylight, and became known as Tycho Brahe's nova. The Urantia Book states that this nova was due to the explosion of a double star. The first serious theoretical description of novas and supernovas was presented in the early 1950's by Hoyle and associates. This theory is still being modified and expanded. Nova and supernova occur due to the explosion of both single and double stars. The remnant of Tycho Brahe's supernova was rediscovered in 1952 by use of the recently invented radio telescope, but could not be shown to' be due to a double star explosion until it was extensively mapped by the orbiting Einstein X-ray observatory in 1967.

REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 458; Urantia Brotherhood Bulletin, "Nova of 1572 Explained."

 

 

 

 

3.

 

CRAB NEBULA

 

 

The Urantia Book tells us that there is a lone star at the center of the Crab Nebula which is the mother sphere, and had its origin in a nova explosion occurring 900 years ago. The existence of a mother sphere for this nebula was demonstrated in 1967 with the detection of a pulsar now known to be a neutron star.

REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 464; Kaufmann, "The Universe"

 

 

 

 

4.

 

 

AGE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

 

 

The Urantia Book tells us that the events triggering the formation of the solar system occurred 4.5 billion years ago. During the early 1950's, and based on the work of Edwin Hubble, the generally accepted age of the universe was just 2 billion years. Then Baade's work at Mt. Wilson revealed an error in Hubble's methodology effectively doubling the age of the universe, and causing great hilarity in the American press at that time. Most astronomers now put the age of the universe at about 15-18 billion years (this idea may change drastically with the apparent collapse of the Big Bang theory). Radio-isotope dating of meteoric material now puts the age of the solar system at about 4.55 billion years, which is virtually the same age as told by The Urantia Book.

REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 655. Kaufmann "The Universe"

 

 

 

 

5.

 

 

The Urantia Book tells us that the red man crossed from Asia to America 85,000 years ago. Until recently, most anthropologists believed that the Americas had been inhabited by humans for no more than 12,000 years. This date has been pushed back to 30-40,000 years.

REFERENCES: Scientific American, 249,(6),1985; Scientific American, 258(6),22. 1988.

I believe the current estimate is now 55,000 years.

 

 

 

6.

 

 

THE GREAT KENTUCKY VOLCANIC ERUPTION

 

 

Evidence found by a geologist named Waffen Huff indicates that "1000 cubic kilometers of material spewed out during at least one and probably two eruptions.." according to an article in the June 18, 1990 issue of Insight magazine. This eruption is believed to be from: "..a massive volcano they believe was once located,,in the process of continental drift, where the Great Smoky Mountains in the southeastern United States are today." The eruptions are believed to have occurred more than 400 million years ago and "may deserve the title of most powerful eruptions ever."

 

We are informed by The Urantia Book that about 330 million years ago there occurred "..the eruption of the great North American volcano of Eastern Kentucky, one of the greatest single volcanic activities ever known. The ashes of this volcano covered five hundred square miles to a depth of from fifteen to twenty feet."

REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, P. 675; R. Bain in Cosmic Reflections Vol. 3 No. 2,1990.

 

 

 

7.

 

 

THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION

 

 

The four gospels in the New Testament indicate that Jesus was executed on a Friday afternoon on the 14th or 15th day of the Jewish month of Nisan, during the period from A.D.25 to A.D.36 when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea. So all that needs to be done is to find the Fridays that occurred in that interval. Such an investigation isolates 6 dates. From these, four can be eliminated from other chronological evidence, leaving the choice between two dates, April 7th in the year A.D.30 and April 3rd in A.D.33. Both correspond to the 14th day of Nisan in agreement with the gospel of John.

 

Many investigations including a recent one by Humphries and Waddington from Oxford University have chosen April 3rd, A.D.33, a major reason being that a partial lunar eclipse occurred on that evening. When Peter addressed a crowd seven weeks after the crucifixion, he reminded them of a prophecy by Joel, "that the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood" (Acts 2.20). A deep eclipse can indeed turn the moon blood-red, so the co-incidence of an eclipse for one of the dates has long been seen as a strong argument for April 3rd, A.D.33.

 

It is no simple matter to calculate these dates because of so many variables that must be taken into account. In modern times, this is done with the aid of computers using an algorithm that includes such factors as the brightness of the moon and sky and the physiology of the eye. The most recent effort by Bradley E. Schaeffer extends an algorithm by Bruin to include variations in the clarity of the air. These modern calculations rule out the role of the eclipse because it could not have been seen from Jerusalem during any phase when it could redden the moon, hence collapsing the main support for April 3rd, A.D.33.

 

The Urantia Papers, received long before computers became available for such calculations, tell us that Jesus was crucified on Friday, April 7, A.D.30.

REFERENCES: 6-0-6 Newsletter 1987, vol. 8(2); Cosmic Reflections 1989, vol. 2 (2); Humphries and Waddington, Science News, Vol. 125, January 1984; Schaeffer, B.E., Sky and Telescope, April 1989.

 

-Science Content of The Urantia Book

 

 

 

I have 7 more waiting whenever you are ready.

 

:phones:

[Eclogite]

Majeston,

you have completely failed to address CraigD's central points:

a) the astronomical knowledge offered in the Urantia book was intended, at least in part, to demonstrate the authors of the book possessed knowledge beyond that of humanity at that time.

:phones: their understanding of Mercury's orbital and rotational periods were completely wrong.

 

Your nitpicking over these periods, which are indeed an exact 2:3 ratio, reveals a lack of understanding of not only astronomy, but also simple arithmetic. Would you now take the time to answer the question properly, rather than simply adding more ill-founded, contentious material. Lets deal with one thing at a time.

[modest]

Modest,

 

Have you compared the Urantia account and the Wegener theory? Have you compared the time frame Wegener places Rodina in?

 

I actually did read papers 57 and 58 and didn't bother commenting on them. Basically, the outline was:

 

• 1,000,000,000 years ago
  Water vapor condenses to form first ocean which covers the whole planet.
  
• 900,000,000 years ago
  Oceanic age - no land mass, no life
  
• < 900,000,000 years ago
  First land emerges from ocean
  
• 800,000,000 years ago
  Land epoch. supercontinent grows as it rises out of the ocean
  
• 750,000,000 years ago
  Supercontinent breaks up and moves toward modern continents
  
• 550,000,000 years ago
  First life
  

 

Clearly whoever wrote this did read and agree with Alfred Wegener. It is all clearly wrong by modern standards, but would have been progressive for its day. The dates for the first ocean are way off as is the date for the first life. There is only ever one supercontinent rather than multiple which is wrong. I mean, are we saying this is Pangea or Rodinia, it's wrong either way. It’s also filled with several small inaccuracies such as how mountains form and some things about earth’s atmosphere that don’t warrant getting into. All in all:

 

Fails peer review abysmally

 

Also, Moontanman is right about the tidal theory or Chamberlain-Moulton theory of planet formation - it's as outdated as Urantia.

 

~modest