Majeston Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Yes, now can you list even 1 thing that is "Proven" to be untrue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Yes, now can you list even 1 thing that is "Proven" to be untrue? Yes, the sun does not contain sodium as a major part of it's atomic make up either by weight, volume, or number of atoms. The spectra of the sun proves this to be true. Now you give me six things like I asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majeston Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Is this a typo? When this book was written the scientific community knew the universe had a finite age much smaller than 900 billion years. It then tells how a nebula collapsed into our sun then...Quote:Originally Posted by Urantia, p.6592,000,000,000 years ago the earth began decidedly to gain on the moon. Always had the planet been larger than its satellite, but there was not so much difference in size until about this time, when enormous space bodies were captured by the earth. Urantia was then about one fifth its present size and had become large enough to hold the primitive atmosphere which had begun to appear as a result of the internal elemental contest between the heated interior and the cooling crust.Two billion years ago earth was not one fifth its present size. Quote:Originally Posted by Urantia, p.6601,000,000,000 years ago is the date of the actual beginning of Urantia history... The real geologic history of Urantia begins with the cooling of the earth's crust sufficiently to cause the formation of the first ocean.All wrong. The oceans are much older than one billion years. Quote:Originally Posted by Urantia, p.663700,000,000 years ago Urantia was approaching the ripening of conditions suitable for the support of lifeLife is older than this. In fact, by this time there was already complex multicellular life. So, have I misunderstood this - or is the whole book similarly filled with clearly-wrong info? This is the first chapter I went to and basically, everything is wrong. I wonder what the hubbub is all about. I am curious about how you think you know so much about what happened 1 or 2 billion years ago or more and can unequivocally state with such certainty and authority that something as profound as the Urantia papers are "wrong". That's actually pretty funny when you think about it. Anybody can quote the prevailing popular theory of the day and feel pretty safe. How many can pick 50 of the most unpopular theories and have them all turn out correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 I am curious about how you think you know so much about what happened 1 or 2 billion years ago or more and can unequivocally state with such certainty and authority that something as profound as the Urantia papers are "wrong". That's actually pretty funny when you think about it. Anybody can quote the prevailing popular theory of the day and feel pretty safe. How many can pick 50 of the most unpopular theories and have them all turn out correct. Majeston, you are really being obtuse. you are trying to make the same old tired argument the religious fundamentalists make. have you ready anything about radioactive dating? All the dates you claim can be proved to be totally wrong with radioactive dating. You really need to do much better than that or pack up and stop trying to convince us with silliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majeston Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 This site by Phil Calabrese has what appears to be the most current calculations done for the Urantia Earth/Moon system as well as what appears to be linguistic confusion between 1930's terms Mass and Size.Data Synthesis :: 2006 Web Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majeston Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Moontanman, No, I'm not being obtuse, you seem to buy into the assumption that the radioactive rate of decay has remained the same. http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/halvorson_histlife.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 This site by Phil Calabrese has what appears to be the most current calculations done for the Urantia Earth/Moon system as well as what appears to be linguistic confusion between 1930's terms Mass and Size.Data Synthesis :: 2006 Web what part of radioactive dating did you miss Majeston? the Earth was it's present size 4.5 billion years ago, the moon was already it's present size by then. Radioactive dating confirms this to with a tiny percentage of error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Moontanman, No, I'm not being obtuse, you seem to buy into the assumption that the radioactive rate of decay has remained the same. http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/halvorson_patterns.pdf There is absolutely no reason not to think radioactive decay is not constant and has been that way since the beginning of the universe. Quoting your own BS to prove your own BS is the mark of a troll majeston. If you are going to refute radioactive decay you will have to cite a real science source not the book of urantia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Moontanman, No, I'm not being obtuse, you seem to buy into the assumption that the radioactive rate of decay has remained the same. http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/halvorson_patterns.pdf How about the six things science and urantia agree with now but only urantia knew about when it was written? you said you knew of these things so what are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majeston Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/halvorson_histlife.pdf sorry, I gave you the wrong link for the variable radioactive-decay discussion and dating. "The usefulness of natural radioactive decay as an accurate dating method hinges on the common assumption that the rate of decay is constant over time. That assumption is incorrect. Radioactivity is a reflection of the existence of the subelectronic domain of physical reality (42:4.12); it is affected by the environment, which is a function of both space and time. An atom is not an isolated physical system; there is no vacuum (42:4.6). Radioactivity is proportional to subelectronic activity (42:4.5,7). Hence, both mutation and radiometric dating are indirectly affected by the spatial environment. The Master Physical Controllers, specifically, the energy transformers (29:4.15–18), have regulated radioactivity (42:4.10) over the span of geologic time, according to the evolution plan of the Life Carriers. In the past, the rates of radioactive decay were greater than the present rates. Therefore, radiometric dates, which are determined by assessing the degree of decay, overestimate the crystallization age of a mineral in a rock, especially if the mineral was formed in the remote past. For the oldest rocks on the surface of the earth, the radiometric dates are about four times greater than the actual dates. The oldest rocks that have been discovered so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake, with a radiometric age of 4.03 billion years. Mineral grains of zircon in sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia have a radiometric age of 4.4 billion years. The oldest dated moon rocks have an age of 4.5 billion years. (The moon reached its present size just prior to the earth.) The oldest lead deposits are dated at 4.54 billion years, and the oldest meteorites at 4.58 billion years. These oldest radiometric dates correspond to actual dates from 1.01 to 1.15 billion years ago, which agrees with the statement in The Urantia Book: “Urantia is more than one billion years old on its surface” (57:7.3). " No one epitomizes Urantia Book scholarship more than Chris Halvorson. Summa *** laude and Phi Beta Kappa are not just words that reflect his past accomplishments. They signify a way of life, an ongoing commitment to the highest standards of personal dedication to intellectual excellence. He is not only systematically unlocking numerous scientific “mysteries” associated with assertions made in The Urantia Book, but also comprehensively developing scholarship on the fullest range of spiritual topics and philosophical issues. Chris earned his PhD in physics and has long worked as a scientist, he sees himself more as natural philosopher than scientist. This is why he is such a well-rounded scholar of The Urantia Book; he appreciates the true role of philosophy as a bridge between religion and science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/halvorson_histlife.pdf sorry, I gave you the wrong link for the variable radio-decay deiscussion and dating. Again you are using totally unsubstantiated quotes from the Urantia book to disprove something that contradicts the Urantia book. You cannot use unsubstantiated writings from the urantia book to back up your premise that radioactive decay varies over time to prove the urantia book. You may as well say "God said it, I believe it, and that final" as your proof. so go somewhere else for your six things or drop it admit your have no reason to say the urantia book is any better than any other random musings by anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 I am curious about how you think you know so much about what happened 1 or 2 billion years ago or more and can unequivocally state with such certainty and authority that something as profound as the Urantia papers are "wrong". That’s a good question Majeston. Asking how we know it is wrong and how we can prove it is wrong is a good direction for this debate in my opinion. You ask how I know what happened one or two billion years ago and the answer to this is fairly simple. Light travels at a speed of one light-year per year. If I look through a telescope and see something two billion light-years away then I am looking directly at how the universe looked two billion years ago. The first Urantian claim that I quoted said something along the lines of this part of the universe being inspected 900 billion years ago. If we use the look-back method I described in the previous paragraph we notice our universe was filled with super-dense and super-hot plasma less than fourteen billion years ago. (1) We expected this and in fact predicted it as a result of expansion. It was confirmed with CMB radiation which is nothing more than looking back at the state of the universe nearly 13.7 billion years ago. There is other physical evidence supporting these conclusions. Moontanman pointed out radioactive decay. The oldest stars that are uranium dated (a method of dating the age of a star by comparing radioactive isotopes of thorium and uranium) are found to agree with the WMAP age of 13.7 billion years (2). There is also globular cluster dating and the theoretical backing of general relativity which leads to standard cosmology. So, the answer is yes, we know the date of 900 billion years is wrong. It would be a tragedy to ignore all the hard work and good conclusions humanity has accomplished in favor of an unsupported book of faith. I also do not appreciate being called blind for having a perspective on this book that includes the evidence above which is clearly different from your own. The next quote of which I take issue is claiming that earth was one fifth its current size (volume?) two billion years ago. Rocks on the current surface of the earth are commonly dated from three to four billion years(3). Radiometric dating makes this possible. Geologists agree with the nuclear physicists on this and disagree with Urantian theology by counting layers of sedimentation which deposit predictably from year to year. The moon has been dated as have meteorites originating from elsewhere in the solar system. These different methods and evidence create a very self-consistent picture of the history of the solar system that does not allow for the earth to be molten and one fifth its current size two billion years ago. The last quote involves biology and the claim that life is younger than 700 million years. This would seem to ignore all precambrian life and the Proterozoic era in particular. I am not as familiar with biology as with geology and the other sciences. But, I know there is too much evidence of life in this era to simply ignore its existence. Which is really what is going on here. Nearly the entire knowledge base of science that humans have attained is simply being ignored in favor of poorly written fiction. I would also note that it’s ironic how you claim no one can really know what happened two billion years ago while you support something that claims to know what inspector number 811,307 was doing 900 billion years ago. Quite clearly there is a double standard here that disallows you to acknowledge anything contradictory to your faith in this book while at the same time accepting any ridiculous claim it makes. With this in mind, I realize the futility of arguing reason toward the resolution of our differences. I wrote this post simply to support my claims and have no expectation that you will recognize any of it. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majeston Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 I might have missed the quote that you are referring to, so could you point out the part of the Urantia papers that say that sodium is a major component of our sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caligastia Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 well, i see my last post got me some more negative reputation points. How cowardly, getting attacked for trying to help somebody out. How pathetic. Although we agree on the UB stuff, I have to say that I think the tone of your posts is abrasive and aloof. If other people want to be insulting, that's their deal - don't be dragged down to their level. Some posts are not worth responding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 I might have missed the quote that you are referring to, so could you point out the part of the Urantia papers that say that sodium is a major component of our sun. I think you owe me the six things you promised before I have to wade into all these posts again. I showed your idea about the age of the earth to be false so I gave you what you asked for. So far all you have done is try to show that your belief in the book proves it's true. Just to be fair I'll look for the post, nothing better to do I guess. But you need to quit delaying and tell me those six things you seemed to be so sure were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 I might have missed the quote that you are referring to, so could you point out the part of the Urantia papers that say that sodium is a major component of our sun. I apologize Majeston I was totally wrong, sodium is not mentioned as being a major component of the sun, it was calcium, as in these quotes from the Urantia book provided by Turtle. Originally Posted by Urantia 41:6.2 Calcium is, in fact, the chief element of the matter-permeation of space throughout Orvonton. Our whole superuniverse is sprinkled with minutely pulverized stone. Stone is literally the basic building matter for the planets and spheres of space. The cosmic cloud, the great space blanket, consists for the most part of the modified atoms of calcium. The stone atom is one of the most prevalent and persistent of the elements. It not only endures solar ionization—splitting—but persists in an associative identity even after it has been battered by the destructive X rays and shattered by the high solar temperatures. Calcium possesses an individuality and a longevity excelling all of the more common forms of matter. ... Originally Posted by Urantia 41:6.3 As your physicists have suspected, these mutilated remnants of solar calcium literally ride the light beams for varied distances, and thus their widespread dissemination throughout space is tremendously facilitated. The sodium atom, under certain modifications, is also capable of light and energy locomotion. The calcium feat is all the more remarkable since this element has almost twice the mass of sodium. Local space-permeation by calcium is due to the fact that it escapes from the solar photosphere, in modified form, by literally riding the outgoing sunbeams. Of all the solar elements, calcium, notwithstanding its comparative bulk—containing as it does twenty revolving electrons—is the most successful in escaping from the solar interior to the realms of space. This explains why there is a calcium layer, a gaseous stone surface, on the sun six thousand miles thick; and this despite the fact that nineteen lighter elements, and numerous heavier ones, are underneath. ... The suggestion that calcium is the main component of the universe or even a major is demonstratively false. Calcium is far down the list and a minor constituent of the universe. Yes there is proof of this, spectral data confirms that calcium is a minor part of the universe as it is in the sun, no 6000 mile layer in the sun. Elements in the sun. Element Abundance (% of total Abundance number of atoms) (% of total mass) Hydrogen 91.2 71.0 Helium 8.7 27.1 Oxygen 0.078 0.97 Carbon 0.043 0.40 Nitrogen 0.0088 0.096 Silicon 0.0045 0.099 Magnesium 0.0038 0.076 Neon 0.0035 0.058 Iron 0.030 0.014 Sulfur 0.015 0.040 Calcium is not even in the top ten in the universe. Even on the "rocky earth" calcium is till a minor element. Here are the seven most common elements of the earth by percentage. 34.6% Iron 29.5% Oxygen 15.2% Silicon 12.7% Magnesium 2.4% Nickel 1.9% Sulfur 0.05% Titanium Turtle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majeston Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 I apologize Majeston I was totally wrong, sodium is not mentioned as being a major component of the sun, it was calcium, as in these quotes from the Urantia book provided by Turtle. Originally Posted by Urantia 41:6.2 Calcium is, in fact, the chief element of the matter-permeation of space throughout Orvonton. ......The suggestion that calcium is the main component of the universe or even a major is demonstratively false. Calcium is far down the list and a minor constituent of the universe. Yes there is proof of this, spectral data confirms that calcium is a minor part of the universe as it is in the sun, no 6000 mile layer in the sun. Thanks Moontan,I am quite well aware of the elemental proportions which you cite as your "proof". They are incorrect. The spectral analysis and conclusions are incorrect. 41:6.1 In deciphering spectral phenomena, it should be remembered that space is not empty; that light, in traversing space, is sometimes slightly modified by the various forms of energy and matter which circulate in all organized space. Some of the lines indicating unknown matter which appear in the spectra of your sun are due to modifications of well-known elements which are floating throughout space in shattered form, the atomic casualties of the fierce encounters of the solar elemental battles. Space is pervaded by these wandering derelicts, especially sodium and calcium. 41:6.2 Calcium is, in fact, the chief element of the matter-permeation of space throughout Orvonton. >>>>>41:6.7 It should be remembered that spectral analyses show only sun-surface compositions. For example: Solar spectra exhibit many iron lines, but iron is not the chief element in the sun. This phenomenon is almost wholly due to the present temperature of the sun's surface, a little less than 6,000 degrees, this temperature being very favorable to the registry of the iron spectrum. >>>>>>>>12:4.14 Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable. Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star. Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance. By this method of reckoning, subsequent to the perfection of more powerful telescopes, it will appear that these far-distant systems are in flight from this part of the universe at the unbelievable rate of more than thirty thousand miles a second. But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors of error embracing angles of observation and other time-space distortions. 12:4.15 But the greatest of all such distortions arises because the vast universes of outer space in the realms next to the domains of the seven superuniverses, seem to be revolving in a direction opposite to that of the grand universe. That is, these myriads of nebulae and their accompanying suns and spheres are at the present time revolving clockwise about the central creation. The seven superuniverses revolve about Paradise in a counterclockwise direction. It appears that the second outer universe of galaxies, like the seven superuniverses, revolves counterclockwise about Paradise. And the astronomic observers of Uversa think they detect evidence of revolutionary movements in a third outer belt of far-distant space which are beginning to exhibit directional tendencies of a clockwise nature. I am working on presenting the 6 items I promised you, maybe I will give you 10 or 20 depending on your and others attitude, as well as my own. I'd just like the presentation to be as coherent as possible, nothing is going to be "proven" here and I'm sure no minds or positions changed by any of the material. What you don't seem to understand is that The Urantia papers are unlike anything else you have ever experienced or will ever experience. They are an "epochal revelation" of spiritual truth to Earth. A gift so to speak. They are not a scientific treatise although the science is probably 100% accurate allowing for an original typo or translation phenomenon such as confusion between mass and size. The science comprises perhaps 100 or so pages of a 2100 page revelation. It is not like the "bible" or book of Mormon; Koran; Keys of Enoch; Cayce; or anything else you have or will come across. Thanks Cal for your words of wisdom and advice, but how can I really take the Cal handle seriously. In this gathering of forces though, I suppose I should be grateful for any help I get from whatever source. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts