Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:24 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Makalu wrote:

I made that statement in response to your claim here:

Quote:
there is simply no doubt that life on this planet is older than 550 million years.


which appears to me was either a knee-jerk reaction or a specious attempt to twist an argument regardless of the facts. perhaps you had another reason...no matter since you now predictably backtrack <shrugs>


There's no backtracking. When I say there's "no doubt" that life on this planet is older than 550 million years, I mean just that. There's no reason to doubt it. All the evidence says otherwise. The general fallibility of science isn't a specific reason to doubt this.

The fact that any scientific claim, even one that is well supported, may possibly turn out to be wrong isn't a reason to think it IS wrong.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 611
well it's your prerogative to think that...just know that a month ago you would have been wrong and, once again, the scientists working in this field didn't think that there was no reason to doubt the established theory.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:17 pm +0000
Posts: 10
I'm glad this is still being discussed here on this forum as this has been weighing on me for a while. Currently I see the gap between the UBs account of the origin of life and the scientific dating of ancient fossils as the biggest blow to the book's credibility and I am finding it difficult to reconcile.

The only conclusion is that either the book or scientific dating methods are off by BILLIONS of years.

I've read Halverson's study, but ultimately found it unconvincing and now there is new evidence pushing the evidence of ancient life on earth back even further:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/life- ... ad-thought

What does this ultimately mean for the accuracy of the timeline in the UB? At what point, if ever, does faith in the books accuracy become belief in mythology similar to bible creationism?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1242
"Scientific dating methods are off by BILLIONS of years".

Yup, I absolutely agree.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:23 am +0000
Posts: 818
Greetings,

I think there are a few important issues to be considered. An article from the Associated Press notes that the carbon discovered in this study can have its origin from something other than life. Because it is rare doesn't mean it should be ruled out. Below is a quote from that article.

Quote:
There are different types of carbon with different weights. This carbon residue had a higher percentage of the lighter type of carbon, which is what scientists usually find in remnants of life, the same as if your finger decayed, Harrison said. There are rare cases where this particular carbon signature wouldn't be from life, but they are exceedingly unusual and only in certain situations. Read more at
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/natio ... U0GuU0c.99


Another fact to consider is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and has the sun as its origin. The sun is 6 billion years old. (Paper 57 Sections 4&5) Fossils discovered in that age range have to take these facts of origin into consideration, which means that such rare, and "exceedingly unusual" situations may have occurred.

In Friendship,
Rexford


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:09 am +0000
Posts: 722
Location: Jacksonville, FL
If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that means it has undergone 2 and ¼ cycle of space respirations. According to UB, the entire universe is in its midpoint of its expansion period meaning this expansion period started .5 billion years ago. Modern science assumes a universe started with a big bang and it has expanded continuously since then. So they assume a linear chemical decay in their dating measurement. But in a cyclic expansion-contraction universe, chemical decay may not be linear. So I’m thinking, knowledge of space respiration may correct the dating discrepancy between the UB and science.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 611
well again i personally don't find this to be compelling evidence of life and despite the headline the research doesn't really claim that it's likely biogenic carbon...merely that the ratio of c12/c13 is within the range of photosynthetic carbon and so it's possibly biogenic carbon (and would create more questions about the origins of life and photosynthesis than it answers if so i might add). There are a number of known abiogenic processes that could have caused the carbon ratio as the authors mention in their paper here:

Potentially biogenic carbon preserved in a 4.1 billion-year-old zircon

Quote:
Abiotic processes that could produce light δ13C during the Hadean include Fischer–Tropsch mechanisms (25) and carbon isotopic fractionation by diffusion (26), incorporation of meteoritic materials, mid-ocean ridge basalt degassing (27), and high-temperature disproportionation of siderite (28).


There are considerable limitations of basing any inference regarding early Earth on a single zircon...



so i guess you have to decide if the conclusions are based on strong evidence


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:23 am +0000
Posts: 818
Interesting Makalu,

I'm wondering why the authors of this study did not consider incorporation of meteoric materials as a source. Certainly, 4.5 billion years ago the earth was much smaller than it is today. I think it spent hundreds of thousands of years of meteoric accretion. It seems to be a more likely reason for finding this particular type of carbon. It irks me when scientists find the right data but interpret it bassackwards. Just a pet quirk.

Rexford


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 611
welp the research was funded by a grant from the Simons Collaboration on the Origins of Life and this way maybe they can get another grant to look at more zircons


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:23 am +0000
Posts: 818
Greetings,

Makalu wrote:
welp the research was funded by a grant from the Simons Collaboration on the Origins of Life and this way maybe they can get another grant to look at more zircons


BINGO!!

So it's not really science then is it? It's commerce.

Rexford


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 611
yeah that's the way things are in science these days...even though nobody was ever likely to look thru 10,000 zircons without some idea of what they think they will find...that's science

Quote:
102:3.13 In science, the idea precedes the expression of its realization; in religion, the experience of realization precedes the expression of the idea.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:23 am +0000
Posts: 818
Greetings Makalu,

Makalu wrote:
yeah that's the way things are in science these days...even though nobody was ever likely to look thru 10,000 zircons without some idea of what they think they will find...that's science


So the whole idea of "settled science" is a ridiculous notion. People have ideas and then try to prove them, which means that proofs can be warped to fit the idea. It's a strange way to think, but I suppose there is no other way to approach the facts of physical reality at this time, especially if philosophy cannot keep up.

Rexford


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 611
guess i missed this one in the news a couple of years ago...another of the candidates competing for "oldest life on earth" was found to be formed by geological not biological actions:

Earth's Oldest Life? Probably Not, New Study Says


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 611
new research:

Fossil or inorganic structure? Scientists dig into early life forms

Quote:
Fossil-like objects grew in natural spring water abundant in the early stages of the planet, an international team of researchers has discovered. But, they were inorganic materials that resulted from simple chemical reactions... this water produces tiny structures, such as tubes, helices, and worm-like objects that are reminiscent of the shapes of primitive organisms. The water also generates complex mineral structures that are similar to nacre -- the shiny substance of sea shells. The similarities between actual fossils and these inorganic structures go beyond appearance and extend to their chemical nature.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 647
There are certainly some major, major problems with the consensus concept of how the Earth formed and when it could have supported life.

Assuming that the planets could have started forming around the time of the birth of the sun, they may have had about 1.5 billion years to do so. It has been assumed that the same dust cloud that created the sun also created the planets. The main problem with that is that there are essentially no retrograde motions in the solar system except for some unusual cases involving moons of the far outer planets. A fairly uniform collapsing dust cloud would create highly random aggregations. These would interact and collide to generate lots of retrograde motions. Also, the first 6 planets have rotational axes that are rather close to 90 degrees to the plane of orbit around the sun and all of the planets sit closely in the same orbital plane.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group