Furchizedek Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Furchizedek!! Is it inspired from the Melchizedeks and if so what made you choose that particular name? Yes, it's a take-off from that, and from a game I play also. It's assumed because of all the scientific errors. Let me try to explain. This is the exact same thing that Urantians get on Bible groups, Christian Fundamentalist groups, from Christians. They'll say, "The Urantia Book (TUB) is wrong because Paul said this or that..." or "The Urantia Book is wrong because it conflicts with God's Word." And so on. For a long time I tried to engage them in their verses and whatnot, to show where their verses were wrong. Then I realized that no matter what you showed them, the bottom line for them was that, "The Urantia Book is wrong because it's not what they believe." The same thing is the case here. The Urantia Book is wrong, not because "of all the scientific errors," but because it's not what you believe about these science issues. What you believe that your Religion of Science is much like what the Christians believe about the bible, that it's some sort of "God's Word." It's not. I will say the same thing that I said earlier, for most of the things you say are wrong in The Urantia Book, versus what science currently says, you cannot prove your case. You do not have PROOF. You have speculation and conjecture and hypotheses and theories. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE UNIVERSE 5, 10, 20, OR 100 BILLION YEARS AGO. You simply do not know. And heaven forbid that you should ever have to let "the Divine foot" in the door. That would be resorting to "magic." Can't have that. Even among some Urantia Book readers, they are so indoctrinated into the idea that whatever current science says must be true, that if there are disagreements between science and The Urantia Book, they ASSume The Urantia Book must be wrong. You know, before science realized that the earth went around the sun, everyone assumed that the sun went around the earth. Why? Because anyone could look at the sky and see that the sun was going around the earth. Or so it was ASSumed. The sun going around the earth model FIT the observations that people made. And it was completely wrong. As to its creativity (names, orders of seraphic and lesser hosts), as I said, impressive. However, I have heard it said that angels cannot see into the future - being limited to the human knowledge available at the time. I don't know if they can or not (probably not, but "seeing into the future" is not the same as anticipating "the scientific discoveries of a thousand years). Bbut maybe it's like the Prime Directive in Star Trek. They are not allowed to give a lot of information that hasn't been earned. But they do give some. The problem is that when it's offered, the science side then says, "Oh, but that's something we can't prove so it doesn't count." Like, The Urantia Book says that our sun will have about a 60 billion year lifetime. "Modern science" I think says 6-10 billion. Perhaps this solar longevity is due to the energy currents/circuits that TUB says exist between the stars. What does science know about that? Nothing. Closer to home, The Urantia Book seems to say that there is another race of mortals right here in our solar system. On science guy told me that was impossible because he said, "We have explored all the planets in the solar system." Yeah, right. We've taken some pictures. We have no idea what's under some cloud decks, what's underground for many of the worlds in the solar system. Did you see those pictures of the "holes" on Mars? Here's some info on them: http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2007/121/mars-dark-hole.htm I'm not sure how many there are. I think they're all about 100 yards across. The Urantia Book says that the other race of mortals are "non breathers." Perhaps they live on Ganymede in underground ice caves. I donno. But perhaps these holes on Mars are artifacts of their previous mining activities on Mars, 500,000 years ago. I'm just saying. I am digressing here because it's late, and also, I must say that I feel like I'm on eggshells here, that if I say anything that doesn't agree with the Science Religion of the moderator, that the thread will be shut down. I really would like to see the moderator recuse himself on this thread. I think he is biased toward science in the same way that Fundie Christians are biased toward "God's Word." They make statements and TUB is wrong because it doesn't agree with their statements. You missed notoriety! Joseph Smith also wrote a book apparently inspired by an angel (but full of contradictions I hear) so the idea that humans can accomplish such things is not unusual. All I can tell you is that if you are in any way a religious person, the best thing for you to do would be to read the book for yourself. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you are "Pure Science Of The Day" type, then don't bother with TUB. Yes, Majeston and I are "True Believers," but no more-so than the science types or the bible types we run into who are also "true believers" in their own right. I never said that humans couldn't write TUB. Maybe they could, maybe not. I never said TUB is right about the origin of the Universe and Science is wrong. I can't prove TUB is right. But science cannot prove their theories either. They just can't prove what happened 20 billion years ago! It can't be done. No matter how many radio carbon dating you do, you can't prove what happened in the Universe 20 billion years ago. And you particularly can't prove some things if there is a Creator influence on them that Science will not allow. Science has a blind spot, it is desperate to explain things, everything, by its own methods. If there is a Creator fly-in-the-ointment, science is going to be screwed because it won't allow itself to take that into account. Science is like a car going down a long straight highway, but if the road comes to a "T", science will keep going off straight into a plowed field because it won't look left or right. It's god blinders on when it comes to God. Science is a moving target. If you are not aware of how fast it moves out from under you, you should be. It's constantly changing. But there are plenty of people who assume that whatever science says NOW is what must be true. I don't doubt Sadler's, and the others, sincerity, I doubt the motivations of the subconscious religious mind, which is always biased. Had the book been delivered to non-religious persons, it would be viewed differently. Dr. Sadler was early on, an SDA minister. He was also a prolific writer, a surgeon, a psychiatrist, a circuit lecturer, and a debunker. A non-religious person would not have been able to do the job Dr. Sadler did. When you have a job to do, you have to pick a qualified person. You don't pick a plumber to repair your roof. Dr. Sadler was skeptical but open. The celestials picked the right guy. In fact, I heard "they" picked three different groups before settling on Dr. Sadler. They needed someone who would not only come to believe the material but who would stay with the project for 20-50 years until it was done. They needed someone who wouldn't turn the whole thing into a circus like Edgar Cayce. They needed someone who wouldn't turn himself into another Paul. No one in the early Urantia movement had any particular notoriety that I know of. Although I realize any forum or blog can only give a very limited view of an individual, nevertheless, I have noted that your own reactions to criticism of the UB resembles that of an indoctrinated person: The exact same thing can be said about your seeming indoctrination into the Religion of Science. - your motivations appear religious Yes, I hope so. - you refuse to accept evidence when it's presented to you False. You have presented none. You confuse "evidence" and "proof" with theories and hypotheses. I am sorry I don't agree with your science beliefs, but that doesn't mean I refuse to accept "evidence." What I refuse to accept is your bible believer like attitude that "The Urantia Book must be wrong because it's not what you believe." - you are intolerant of those who disagree Absolutely not. - you strongly promote individuals you did not personally know (Sadler, etc.), except through hearsay I promote them how? You are imagining things. I do not promote him or anyone else at all. Is giving you some of their bio, promoting them? That's ridiculous. For these reasons and more I question the authorship of the UB. Have you read it? It seems premature to me, even to the point of closed mindedness, to say you question the authorship if you haven't read it. But I will say that if you are non-religious, it's probably best that you don't even bother with it. Just be non-religious and be happy about it and don't spend another minute thinking about The Urantia Book. Take care. Quote
modest Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 It's plagiarized too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book#Re-use_of_other_sources http://www.squarecircles.com/urantiabooksourcestudies/index.htm The Urantia Book states in its Foreword that more than one thousand "human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings" were selected in preparing the papers... In recent years, students of the papers have found that the free use of other sources appears to be true.[4][21] None of the material allegedly used from other sources are directly cited or referenced within the book, which could therefore count as "plagiarism" by modern standards of scholarship... In one example cited by Block, the original author discusses the periodicity of the chemical elements and concludes that the harmony in the construction of the atom suggests some unspecified plan of organization. In conclusion from this "plagiarism", the authors of The Urantia Book assert that this harmony is evidence of the intelligent design of the universe. W. F. G. Swann writes on page 64 of The Architecture of the Universe [1934]... Starting from any one of them [i.e., chemical elements], and noting some property such as the melting point, for example, the property would change as we went along the row, but as we continued it would gradually come back to the condition very similar to that which we started ... The eighth element was in many respects like the first, the ninth like the second, the tenth like the third, and so on. Such a slate of affairs point not only to a varied internal structure, but also to a certain harmony in that variation suggestive of some organized plan in building the atom. Contrast with The Urantia Book's version: Starting from any one element, after noting some one property, such a quality will exchange for six consecutive elements, but on reaching the eighth, it tends to reappear, that is, the eighth chemically active element resembles the first, the ninth the second, and so on. Such a fact of the physical world unmistakably points to the sevenfold constitution of ancestral energy and is indicative of the fundamental reality of the sevenfold diversity of the creations of time and space. The total heat now given out by the solar system sun each second is sufficient to boil all the water in all the oceans on Urantia in just one second of time (41:7.6) The heat sent out by the sun, if poured into the oceans of the earth, would cause them to boil in one second. —W.F.G. Swann (1934) So it's divine revelation only when not plagiarized from previous authors. Brilliant. Quote
Majeston Posted March 30, 2011 Author Report Posted March 30, 2011 It's plagiarized too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book#Re-use_of_other_sources http://www.squarecircles.com/urantiabooksourcestudies/index.htm So it's divine revelation only when not plagiarized from previous authors. Brilliant. Actually Modest, That is almost exactly what is going on and quite brilliant besides. 0.12.10 In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses, we are to be guided by the mandate of the superuniverse rulers which directs that we shall, in all our efforts to reveal truth and co-ordinate essential knowledge, give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 121.8.12 [Acknowledgment: In carrying out my commission to restate the teachings and retell the doings of Jesus of Nazareth, I have drawn freely upon all sources of record and planetary information. My ruling motive has been to prepare a record which will not only be enlightening to the generation of men now living, but which may also be helpful to all future generations. From the vast store of information made available to me, I have chosen that which is best suited to the accomplishment of this purpose. As far as possible I have derived my information from purely human sources. Only when such sources failed, have I resorted to those records which are superhuman. When ideas and concepts of Jesus’ life and teachings have been acceptably expressed by a human mind, I invariably gave preference to such apparently human thought patterns. Although I have sought to adjust the verbal expression the better to conform to our concept of the real meaning and the true import of the Master’s life and teachings, as far as possible, I have adhered to the actual human concept and thought pattern in all my narratives. I well know that those concepts which have had origin in the human mind will prove more acceptable and helpful to all other human minds. When unable to find the necessary concepts in the human records or in human expressions, I have next resorted to the memory resources of my own order of earth creatures, the midwayers. And when that secondary source of information proved inadequate, I have unhesitatingly resorted to the superplanetary sources of information. 121.8.13 The memoranda which I have collected, and from which I have prepared this narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus — aside from the memory of the record of the Apostle Andrew — embrace thought gems and superior concepts of Jesus’ teachings assembled from more than two thousand human beings who have lived on earth from the days of Jesus down to the time of the inditing of these revelations, more correctly restatements. The revelatory permission has been utilized only when the human record and human concepts failed to supply an adequate thought pattern. My revelatory commission forbade me to resort to extrahuman sources of either information or expression until such a time as I could testify that I had failed in my efforts to find the required conceptual expression in purely human sources. Your attempt to play the plagiarism card Modest, is ludicrous at best. Quote
joekgamer Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Did it provide citations for the sources? If not, then it is plagerism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism Quote
dduckwessel Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Let me try to explain. This is the exact same thing that Urantians get on Bible groups, Christian Fundamentalist groups, from Christians. They'll say, "The Urantia Book (TUB) is wrong because Paul said this or that..." or "The Urantia Book is wrong because it conflicts with God's Word." And so on. For a long time I tried to engage them in their verses and whatnot, to show where their verses were wrong. Forgive me Furchizedek, I don't want to gang up on you, God knows I've been there on this forum and it's not comfortable. For sure the Christian Fundamentalists are a hard nut to crack but you exhibit the exact same tendencies? The difference is your theology but the resultant behavior is the same as theirs. It appears to me the culprit is religion. Then I realized that no matter what you showed them, the bottom line for them was that, "The Urantia Book is wrong because it's not what they believe." The same thing is the case here. The Urantia Book is wrong, not because "of all the scientific errors," but because it's not what you believe about these science issues. That's how many of us feel with you, no matter what solid evidence is produced, you will reject it because your mind is already made up. What you believe that your Religion of Science is much like what the Christians believe about the bible, that it's some sort of "God's Word." It's not. You're right, read literally it's a mess of contradictions but I have discovered an interpreting anomaly that reveals a different picture. I put it on the theology forum if you care to take a gander. If it weren't for this I would have rejected the Bible and some Apocrypha long ago. I have studied the UB and it contains no anomaly. ...before science realized that the earth went around the sun, everyone assumed that the sun went around the earth. Why? Because anyone could look at the sky and see that the sun was going around the earth. Or so it was ASSumed. The sun going around the earth model FIT the observations that people made. And it was completely wrong. We just don't suddenly arrive. According to UB we're unenlightened beings who need to learn our place in the hierarchal order of ascended beings. The UB tells us what we should do - that's not learning, it's dictation. I feel like I'm on eggshells here, that if I say anything that doesn't agree with the Science Religion of the moderator, that the thread will be shut down. Your tenacity is admirable but a refusal to consider the facts is (I'm sorry to say) the very strong indicator of indoctrination. Been there, done that, so I recognize the signs. All I can tell you is that if you are in any way a religious person, the best thing for you to do would be to read the book for yourself. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have read a good deal but I see no evidence of an anomaly, which would be the case if it was divinely inspired. Science is a moving target. If you are not aware of how fast it moves out from under you, you should be. It's constantly changing. But there are plenty of people who assume that whatever science says NOW is what must be true. Knowledge 'builds upon itself' like a reverse pyramid. Science is building upon the groundwork knowledge of others who have gone before. The only thing I fear for science is they will become so smart, they will forget that 'knowledge untempered with love' is dangerous. Dr. Sadler was early on, an SDA minister. He was also a prolific writer, a surgeon, a psychiatrist, a circuit lecturer, and a debunker. A non-religious person would not have been able to do the job Dr. Sadler did. It most definitely seems that his religious bent gave impetus to his life. They needed someone who wouldn't turn himself into another Paul. No one in the early Urantia movement had any particular notoriety that I know of. What was wrong with Paul? It's not that they possessed notoriety but that they were after it and what better way than to produce a book like Joseph Smith! The exact same thing can be said about your seeming indoctrination into the Religion of Science. You should read some of the stuff science is coming up with, it's mind boggling. They're not just talking about doing this stuff, they're actually doing it! I promote them how? You are imagining things. I do not promote him or anyone else at all. Is giving you some of their bio, promoting them? That's ridiculous. Are you angry and if so, why? Your links are always related to them and let's face it, without them the UB would not be a reality. Just be non-religious and be happy about it and don't spend another minute thinking about The Urantia Book. That's not your call. I was simply pointing out that it's always religious people who are coming up with these things. Quote
joekgamer Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Prove that the Urantia Book is true, by showing that it cannot be false (doesn't create false predictions such as [to quote two widly known superstitions], "Earth will end in 2012" or "All computers will crash in 2000") and that it supports observed evidence (light is bent by large masses, etc.). Only then will ideas in the Urantia Book such as 'circuits between stars' become mainstream. Quote
Furchizedek Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Prove that the Urantia Book is true, by showing that it cannot be false (doesn't create false predictions such as [to quote two widly known superstitions], "Earth will end in 2012" or "All computers will crash in 2000") and that it supports observed evidence (light is bent by large masses, etc.). Only then will ideas in the Urantia Book such as 'circuits between stars' become mainstream. Have you read it? If not, why don't you do that first? How is it anyone's job to prove TUB is true, to you? Not any of us wrote it. Read it and decide for yourself. Also, someone earlier suggested that I was "indoctrinated." My grandmother sent me a Urantia Book in 1959. She lived in Chicago and I lived in Minneapolis. She said nothing, she just sent me a book. I read it alone. No preacher or teacher or peer pressure was there. It was just me and the book. I read it and I liked what I read. 20 years later I went to Chicago to visit my grandmother. No one indoctrinated me. It's just a book. If you want to be "convinced" the book is true, read it and convince yourself, or not as the case may be. It's no one else's job. Quote
Furchizedek Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 Did it provide citations for the sources? If not, then it is plagerism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism Thanks for posting the link but the link doesn't support the idea that you are promoting. The first paragraph says: Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication," of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,[1][2] but the notion remains problematic with nebulous boundaries.[3][4][5][6] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement, while in the previous centuries authors and artists were encouraged to "copy the masters as closely as possible" and avoid "unnecessary invention."[7][8][9][10][11][12] And there's more there. There's holes there big enough to drive semis through. Do you see one of the conditions is, "the representation of them as one's own original work." There are enough caveats in The Urantia Book that clearly show that the writers do not represent human writing as their own work. Also, plagiarism is a human concept. What does it have to do with the Universe? If God already knows everything then He already knows every human idea, and knows them before any human has them. All we are doing is voicing God's ideas in our own human way. How is it plagiarism then for celestial beings to use God's ideas as they were expressed by humans? Quote
modest Posted March 30, 2011 Report Posted March 30, 2011 I didn't see your reply inside my quote hence the delayed response. ..I think in one instance you are off by 986+trillion years and in another instance... I wrote trillion meaning billion. The same conclusions apply. No, my friend, a theory remains a theory until it is proven to be true Oh, boy. I'm not sure how to convey... ...ok, I realize that you don't know this, and that is why you are trying to debate it... but you just can't imagine how uninformed such a comment is. It's similar, and I mean no disrespect in saying this, to a person claiming that babies come from storks. Of course, it is wrong that babies come from storks, but more than that and more to my point, it is impossible to honestly assert "babies come from storks" without betraying that the speaker has no idea how reproduction works. For someone to honestly say that a scientific theory remains a theory until it is proven means that they have no idea how a scientific theory works or even what it means—not an exaggeration. You could read chapter 3 of the Logic of Scientific Discovery by Popper. It is, in a sense, the foundational document on the topic. But, probably more helpful, you could read: The Language of Science – it’s "just a theory" or, But it's "JUST a THEORY" This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using. Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory. The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory." A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious. A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well. For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force. http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html A theory is always a theory—no matter how verified it is. It never graduates into something else. The most complete, most confirmed, and most successful explanations in science are theories. I think Furchizedek just pointed out that the number of stars in the Milky Way has just recently changed by a factor of 4 I guess now it's been "proven" and 3 months ago the prior theory was "proven" You really would need to do some reading about 'what is science' or 'how does science work' to get your feet wet in this topic. "the number of stars in the milky way" is not a theory of science. It is an observation. It could also, conceivably, be a prediction of a theory if there were a theory that made such a prediction. A confirmation of a prediction does not prove a theory true, but a falsified prediction of a theory does prove (or can prove) a theory wrong. For example, Eddington's famous 1919 solar eclipse observation agreed with a prediction of Einstein's general theory of relativity and disagreed with a prediction of Newton's theory of gravity. This proved Newton's theory wrong, but does not necessarily prove Einstein's theory correct. It supports Einstein's theory. That the universe was filled with dense hot plasma roughly 14 billion years ago is a confirmed prediction of the general theory of relativity. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I certainly don't pretend to understand the Theory of Relativity, although I don't think it's really all that difficult, but,doesn't that theory make certain foundational assumptions that there is nothing "stationary" or "motionless" in the so-called universe? You might be referring to the equivalence principle. I don't know why you reference it or why your comment is relevant. and, while we're at it didn't I read somewhere that there were only a handful of people on the planet in 1934 who understood E=MC squared? Anyone familiar with special relativity in 1934 understood e=mc2, just like today. If that's true, why is it in the Urantia papers as true? This is so pointless. The relationship e=mc2 was widely considered true before it was verified. It was verified when neutrons were discovered which I think was in the mid '30s. You can, by the bye, use e=mc2 to calculate the lifetime of the sun. As best I recall the calculation gives around 10 billion years. I'll work the numbers if you ask. Furchizedek said in a recent post that the sun, according to Urantia, will have a 60 billion year lifetime. Now you say that e=mc2 is true. Whatever, it really doesn't matter. The lifetime of the sun is consistent with e=mc2, consistent with astronomical observation of the relative abundance of main sequence stars, consistent with nuclear fusion and the standard model of particle physics, consistent with our ability to date stars via radioactive decay, and conservation of energy, but none of that matters does it? It is a matter of faith. There really is no common footing. You can't debate the science and I can't reject everything that I understand based on faith. JMJones0424 1 Quote
modest Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 How is it anyone's job to prove TUB is true If you claim it is true then the site rules would insist that you support the statement. I don't know if you have made that claim—I haven't read most of your posts. Saying "energy current between stars" doesn't support that the sun has a 60 billion year lifetime. It is no different from saying "fairies power stars". Completely unsupported. Basic laws of science do support a much shorter lifetime. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and handwaving is no substitute. JMJones0424 1 Quote
Furchizedek Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Prove that the Urantia Book is true, by showing that it cannot be false (doesn't create false predictions such as [to quote two widly known superstitions], "Earth will end in 2012" or "All computers will crash in 2000") and that it supports observed evidence (light is bent by large masses, etc.). Only then will ideas in the Urantia Book such as 'circuits between stars' become mainstream. Have you heard the expression, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."? It's not my job to prove anything to you. It's my job to tell you about the book (the water source). After that, if you are thirsty, it's your job to drink. If you're not thirsty, then you're not. I will defend the book as best I can but I am not in the convincing business or the proving business, and I did not write the book. In other words, I am not obligated to explain something that I did not author. No matter the "proof" one offers, there's always a way to reject it. For example, TUB talks about the supernova of 1572 and seems to give information about that supernova that was NOT known by human science in 1955 when TUB was published. But science guys say it was a "lucky guess," or that the revelators just decided to take a chance and risk the whole book on one unnecessary statement that didn't need to be in the book, or that the word "double" does not mean "binary," and so on. No matter how reasonable the argument FOR the book's information is, science types can, and will find a rejection route. Quote
Furchizedek Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 If you claim it is true then the site rules would insist that you support the statement. I don't know if you have made that claim—I haven't read most of your posts. I don't claim it's true. I hope that settles that. I believe it's true. You won't sue me for believing it's true, will you? I think you should recuse yourself from any Urantia discussions. You are very biased toward your own pet beliefs. You should not be moderating Urantia threads, imo. Saying "energy current between stars" doesn't support that the sun has a 60 billion year lifetime. I have no idea if it does or not. It's simply an option. It is no different from saying "fairies power stars". Completely unsupported. Sorry, I disagree. You may believe in fairies but I don't. Basic laws of science do support a much shorter lifetime. And there is YOUR statement without PROOF. Not only that but it's an "appeal to authority," a logical fallacy. You just appealed to the authority of "basic laws of science." You just appealed to your Religion of Science. You wave your magic wand and say "Basic laws of science" don't support this or that, and that settles it? That's pretty thin stuff. Christians do the same. They wave their magic wand and say, "The Bible says..." and that settles it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and handwaving is no substitute. Science's expectation for the longevity of the sun has been changing over the years just like sciences guesses for the number of stars in the Milky Way have increased 400% since the 1960s. Science doesn't know enough to come up with the right answer for the life expectancy of the Sun. When they know more their story will change. Science has no idea what's going on between the stars, in interstellar and inter galactic space, what sort of energies are out there, electric, plasma, and so on. I make no claim about our sun lasting 60 billion years. It's simply a statement in The Urantia Book. You are free to believe any number of years you like, probably the latest statement from the High Priests of Science would be the figure you would want to embrace. It doesn't matter to me. Quote
Furchizedek Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Nobody is claiming that they witnessed events that took place hundereds/thousands/millions/etc years ago. Using knowlege we have now, it is possible to intrapolate events that happened before. I think you mean "interpolate" or possibly "extrapolate." I don't know. In any case, neither of those is proof. They are interpolation and extrapolation, not "proof." That's what happened in the 1960s with the number of stars in the Milky Way. Science said about 100 billion and they were absolutely sure of it because they had carefully counted the stars in representative star field photos of the Milky Way and they had "extrapolated" the final number from that data. They were wrong because they didn't know what they didn't know about the Milky Way. The assumed they knew all the factors and they did not. Now they have changed their figures by a factor of 4 TIMES. After something is proven, it is still called a theory. I don't know who told you that, but it's wrong. After something is proven it's called "a fact." Where are you getting this stuff from? Main Entry: theoryFunction: noun 1 : abstract thought2 : the general principles of a subject3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts4 : HYPOTHESIS : CONJECTURE Hypothesis and conjecture are synonyms. Do you know what "conjecture" means? Ergo, not everything that is called a theory is in doubt. That's a strawman. No one said that every theory is in doubt. Radioactive materials decay at a specific rate. This has been observed and shown beyond doubt. Another strawman. No one has said otherwise. Using this, scientists can calculate the age of (for example) a rock. You need to learn a little more about such things. There are many factors that determine the accuracy of such measurements, just like there were factors in the 1960s that led science to make wrong guesses about the number of stars in the galaxy. I sense by some of your statements above that perhaps you are a bit of a lightweight and I may skip over some of your posts that I can't take as seriously as some of the others. Quote
Majeston Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Posted March 31, 2011 Would someone who knows please tell me how to use this MULTIQUOTE function, ? Thanks if i do a reply i get a new screen with some quotes but not all data, if i hit multiquote i get no screen but the multiquote lights up which tells me nothing. thanks again Quote
Majeston Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Posted March 31, 2011 "Radioactive materials decay at a specific rate. This has been observed and shown beyond doubt." Another strawman. No one has said otherwise. Actually Norm, I said it and I was quoting Chris Halvorsons "theory", I'm still getting up to speed on dictionary language and scientific language as Modest has pointed out, but if he used the same criteria for Urantia that he does for science he would stop calling it Nazi propaganda and not resort to saying things like well, when words don't mean what they mean then the conversation is over.Norm you should get up to speed on the rate of radioactive decay theory error. It's quite enlightening. Here's the link.....(as you might surmise, I'm a Mac user and not a pc user) http://perfectinghorizons.org/ByChrisHalvorson/histlife.pdfandhttp://perfectinghorizons.org/videos/070518.swf I make no claim about our sun lasting 60 billion years. It's simply a statement in The Urantia Book. I think you might be wrong here Norm, I recall the passage stating 25 billion years, let's see what it actually says P465:2, 41:9.2 Atoms and electrons are subject to gravity. The ultimatons are not subject to local gravity, the interplay of material attraction, but they are fully obedient to absolute or Paradise gravity, to the trend, the swing, of the universal and eternal circle of the universe of universes. Ultimatonic energy does not obey the linear or direct gravity attraction of near-by or remote material masses, but it does ever swing true to the circuit of the great ellipse of the far-flung creation. P465:3, 41:9.3 Your own solar center radiates almost one hundred billion tons of actual matter annually, while the giant suns lose matter at a prodigious rate during their earlier growth, the first billion years. A sun's life becomes stable after the maximum of internal temperature is reached, and the subatomic energies begin to be released. And it is just at this critical point that the larger suns are given to convulsive pulsations. P465:4, 41:9.4 Sun stability is wholly dependent on the equilibrium between gravity-heat contention -- tremendous pressures counterbalanced by unimagined temperatures. The interior gas elasticity of the suns upholds the overlying layers of varied materials, and when gravity and heat are in equilibrium, the weight of the outer materials exactly equals the temperature pressure of the underlying and interior gases. In many of the younger stars continued gravity condensation produces ever-heightening internal temperatures, and as internal heat increases, the interior X-ray pressure of supergas winds becomes so great that, in connection with the centrifugal motion, a sun begins to throw its exterior layers off into space, thus redressing the imbalance between gravity and heat. P465:5, 41:9.5 Your own sun has long since attained relative equilibrium between its expansion and contraction cycles, those disturbances which produce the gigantic pulsations of many of the younger stars. Your sun is now passing out of its six billionth year. At the present time it is functioning through the period of greatest economy. It will shine on as of present efficiency for more than twenty-five billion years. It will probably experience a partially efficient period of decline as long as the combined periods of its youth and stabilized function. Quote
modest Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 If you claim it is true then the site rules would insist that you support the statement. I don't know if you have made that claim—I haven't read most of your posts. I don't claim it's true. I hope that settles that. Then all you are doing is handwaving—an argument from ignorance. No one is impressed with your ability to say 'I don't claim or know anything' loudly. I think you should recuse yourself from any Urantia discussions. You are very biased toward your own pet beliefs. You should not be moderating Urantia threads, imo. There is only one Urantia thread and I am not moderating it. Standard cosmology, conservation laws, and other such science that I have based my arguments on are not "my own pet beliefs". They are well-supported scientific theory. The only reason that doesn't mean anything to you is because you don't know what it means. An argument from ignorance isn't going to get you anywhere on a science forum. Saying "energy current between stars" doesn't support that the sun has a 60 billion year lifetime. I have no idea if it does or not. It's simply an option. For it to be an option we would have to define what "energy current between stars" means and why it would affect the lifetime of stars. Basic laws of science do support a much shorter lifetime. And there is YOUR statement without PROOF. Wikipedia:On average, main-sequence stars are known to follow an empirical Mass–luminosity relation|mass-luminosity relationship. The luminosity (L) of the star is roughly proportional to the total mass (M) as the following power law: [math]\begin{smallmatrix}L\ \propto\ M^{3.5}\end{smallmatrix}[/math] This relationship applies to main-sequence stars in the range 0.1–50 solar masses. The amount of fuel available for nuclear fusion is proportional to the mass of the star. Thus, the lifetime of a star on the main sequence can be estimated by comparing it to solar evolutionary models. The Sun has been a main-sequence star for about 4.5 billion years and it will become a red giant in 6.5 billion years, for a total main sequence lifetime of roughly 1010 years. Hence: [math]\begin{smallmatrix} \tau_{\rm MS}\ \approx \ 10^{10} \text{years} \cdot \left[ \frac{M}{M_{\bigodot}} \right] \cdot \left[ \frac{L_{\bigodot}}{L} \right]\ =\ 10^{10} \text{years} \cdot \left[ \frac{M}{M_{\bigodot}} \right]^{-2.5} \end{smallmatrix}[/math] where M and L are the mass and luminosity of the star, respectively, [math]\begin{smallmatrix}M_{\bigodot}\end{smallmatrix}[/math] is a solar mass, [math]\begin{smallmatrix}L_{\bigodot}\end{smallmatrix}[/math] is the solar luminosity and [math]\tau_{\rm MS}[/math] is the star's estimated main sequence lifetime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence#Lifetime Or, using e=mc2 and knowledge of nuclear fusion (4 x 1H -> 1He + neutrinos + 2e+ + energy) this link shows a simple calculation for the sun's lifetime. Not only that but it's an "appeal to authority," a logical fallacy. You just appealed to the authority of "basic laws of science." You just appealed to your Religion of Science. I understand, Furchizedek. To you, science is an uncheckable source of authority. All you hear is "science says this" and "scientists say that" as if they are making things up and expecting you to believe them, so it is no different to you from religion. In fact, science is fundamentally different from divine revelation. You trust what Urantia says because it says it. I trust the sun's rate of nuclear fusion because I can calculate the rate of fusion. I can calculate the mass and energy difference between hydrogen and helium. I know that fusion emits neutrinos and I know that we can check what is happening deep inside the sun by building neutrino detectors here on earth. I know what those results are and what they mean. Anyone can use science. It is not immutable like divine revelation, but is subject only to logic and evidence. Nowhere does science ask anyone to rely on faith. It only feels that way when you don't understand any of it and you have to rely on others to tell you what it means. If you are unable or unwilling to critically examine the scientific evidence then you literally have no argument. After something is proven, it is still called a theory. I don't know who told you that, but it's wrong. After something is proven it's called "a fact." Where are you getting this stuff from? Furchizedek, you really don't understand what Polymath is talking about. I quoted in post 60 how "gravity" can be both a scientific theory and a fact. You should bother yourself to learn what a scientific theory is before trying to criticize one because it is called "theory". It's honestly embarrassing. JMJones0424 1 Quote
Majeston Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Posted March 31, 2011 For it to be an option we would have to define what "energy current between stars" means and why it would affect the lifetime of stars. Modest- I believe this is what Furchizedek is referring to--- 41:7.7 Only those suns which function in the direct channels of the main streams of universe energy can shine on forever. Such solar furnaces blaze on indefinitely, being able to replenish their material losses by the intake of space-force and analogous circulating energy. But stars far removed from these chief channels of recharging are destined to undergo energy depletion—gradually cool off and eventually burn out. 41:7.8 Such dead or dying suns can be rejuvenated by collisional impact or can be recharged by certain nonluminous energy islands of space or through gravity-robbery of near-by smaller suns or systems. The majority of dead suns will experience revivification by these or other evolutionary techniques. Those which are not thus eventually recharged are destined to undergo disruption by mass explosion when the gravity condensation attains the critical level of ultimatonic condensation of energy pressure. Such disappearing suns thus become energy of the rarest form, admirably adapted to energize other more favorably situated suns. 8. SOLAR-ENERGY REACTIONS 41:8.1 In those suns which are encircuited in the space-energy channels, solar energy is liberated by various complex nuclear-reaction chains, the most common of which is the hydrogen-carbon-helium reaction. In this metamorphosis, carbon acts as an energy catalyst since it is in no way actually changed by this process of converting hydrogen into helium. Under certain conditions of high temperature the hydrogen penetrates the carbon nuclei. Since the carbon cannot hold more than four such protons, when this saturation state is attained, it begins to emit protons as fast as new ones arrive. In this reaction the ingoing hydrogen particles come forth as a helium atom. Wikipedia:On average, main-sequence stars are known to follow an empirical Mass–luminosity relation|mass-luminosity relationship. The luminosity (L) of the star is roughly proportional to the total mass (M) as the following power law: [math]\begin{smallmatrix}L\ \propto\ M^{3.5}\end{smallmatrix}[/math] This relationship applies to main-sequence stars in the range 0.1–50 solar masses. The amount of fuel available for nuclear fusion is proportional to the mass of the star. Thus, the lifetime of a star on the main sequence can be estimated by comparing it to solar evolutionary models. The Sun has been a main-sequence star for about 4.5 billion years and it will become a red giant in 6.5 billion years, for a total main sequence lifetime of roughly 1010 years. Hence: [math]\begin{smallmatrix} \tau_{\rm MS}\ \approx \ 10^{10} \text{years} \cdot \left[ \frac{M}{M_{\bigodot}} \right] \cdot \left[ \frac{L_{\bigodot}}{L} \right]\ =\ 10^{10} \text{years} \cdot \left[ \frac{M}{M_{\bigodot}} \right]^{-2.5} \end{smallmatrix}[/math] where M and L are the mass and luminosity of the star, respectively, [math]\begin{smallmatrix}M_{\bigodot}\end{smallmatrix}[/math] is a solar mass, [math]\begin{smallmatrix}L_{\bigodot}\end{smallmatrix}[/math] is the solar luminosity and [math]\tau_{\rm MS}[/math] is the star's estimated main sequence lifetime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence#Lifetime Or, using e=mc2 and knowledge of nuclear fusion (4 x 1H -> 1He + neutrinos + 2e+ + energy) this link shows a simple calculation for the sun's lifetime. Modest this is all gross generalization and it appears that it postulates that all stars are basically composed of the same basic material. Perhaps this is one reason why science postulates; speculates, theorizes, conjectures that our sun is 4.5 billion years old as you repeat and will only last 5 billion more years.Urantia tells us that the our sun is 6 billion years old and will last another 25 billion years. You should reread paper 41 and do your best to not say this is wrong and that's wrong.If you can really fathom the following statement and its implications you might not be so certain of what you think you know. P655:4, 57:4.8 6,000,000,000 years ago marks the end of the terminal breakup and the birth of your sun, the fifty-sixth from the last of the Andronover second solar family. This final eruption of the nebular nucleus gave birth to 136,702 suns, most of them solitary orbs. The total number of suns and sun systems having origin in the Andronover nebula was 1,013,628. The number of the solar system sun is 1,013,572. snip...If you are unable or unwilling to critically examine the scientific evidence then you literally have no argument. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.