Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:36 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4152
brooklyn_born wrote:
Makalu wrote:
so, despite modern scientific beliefs, neither skeletal type nor toolmaking can be used to identify humans



But according to TUB, shouldn't statements on the physical sciences presented in the text fall in line with scientific discoveries and not the other way around?

101:4.2 "... within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries."


Need to watch the snip and paste to hide context and that which disproves that which we cling to.....like a lack of confidence in the Revelation or those parts we may disagree with. Science has a long way to go with its reliable "method" to require any revisions of the science in the UB. We'll need to get on the other side of the big bang and order from chaos theories to discover the true order and nature of creation. When science "discovers" creation itself as creation, progress will come. In the mean time, the science provided in the UB would be a worthy guide and light to lead science closer to how things work. But the history of the universes and our world? The UB claims its reliability will stand for the ages to come....all of them.

101:4.2 (1109.3) Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

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

That's a fascinating way to think about things, that human science is always right and celestial revelation must fall in line with error-ridden human thinking. I think that would lend a need for figurative reading. It all makes sense now.

Celestial revelation is correct and human science is attempting to catch up with it. The problem lies in revealing information without referring to unearned knowledge. What needs revision in the text are explanations which omitted information due to the revelation mandate. Revisions would accommodate earned information newly discovered by science. This, however, does not mean that what was revealed initially in the text is wrong. It simply means it is not complete.

In Friendship,
Rexford


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Makalu wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:


But according to TUB, shouldn't statements on the physical sciences presented in the text fall in line with scientific discoveries and not the other way around?

101:4.2 "... within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries."


erm the quote doesn't describe any blanket rule...as it pertains to the scientific discovery of human ancestry, you would have to propose that you can physically detect the spirit of worship in a fossil. The UB is pretty clear that there were many dead-end branching "cousins" outside the line of our direct ancestry, and that is also what paleontologists have been discovering...so i really don't see any conflict.

just to clarify...the UB does cover five basic skeletal types:

Quote:
81:4.1 (904.5) As contact is made with the dawn of historic times, all of Eurasia, northern Africa, and the Pacific Islands is overspread with the composite races of mankind. And these races of today have resulted from a blending and reblending of the five basic human stocks of Urantia.

81:4.2 (904.6) Each of the Urantia races was identified by certain distinguishing physical characteristics. The Adamites and Nodites were long-headed; the Andonites were broad-headed. The Sangik races were medium-headed, with the yellow and blue men tending to broad-headedness. The blue races, when mixed with the Andonite stock, were decidedly broad-headed. The secondary Sangiks were medium- to long-headed.

81:4.3 (904.7) Although these skull dimensions are serviceable in deciphering racial origins, the skeleton as a whole is far more dependable. In the early development of the Urantia races there were originally five distinct types of skeletal structure:

81:4.4 (904.8) 1. Andonic, Urantia aborigines.

81:4.5 (904.9) 2. Primary Sangik, red, yellow, and blue.

81:4.6 (904.10) 3. Secondary Sangik, orange, green, and indigo.

81:4.7 (904.11) 4. Nodites, descendants of the Dalamatians.

81:4.8 (904.12) 5. Adamites, the violet race.

81:4.9 (904.13) As these five great racial groups extensively intermingled, continual mixture tended to obscure the Andonite type by Sangik hereditary dominance. The Lapps and the Eskimos are blends of Andonite and Sangik-blue races. Their skeletal structures come the nearest to preserving the aboriginal Andonic type. But the Adamites and the Nodites have become so admixed with the other races that they can be detected only as a generalized Caucasoid order.


but as you see there is overlap and "tendencies" within those five types in the simplified cranial description and you can expect the same from the skeletons of the many cousins.

perhaps i'm not sure what it is you are expecting from scientific discoveries and methods of sorting....



Okay, understood.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
fanofVan wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:
Makalu wrote:
so, despite modern scientific beliefs, neither skeletal type nor toolmaking can be used to identify humans



But according to TUB, shouldn't statements on the physical sciences presented in the text fall in line with scientific discoveries and not the other way around?

101:4.2 "... within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries."


Need to watch the snip and paste to hide context and that which disproves that which we cling to.....like a lack of confidence in the Revelation or those parts we may disagree with. Science has a long way to go with its reliable "method" to require any revisions of the science in the UB. We'll need to get on the other side of the big bang and order from chaos theories to discover the true order and nature of creation. When science "discovers" creation itself as creation, progress will come. In the mean time, the science provided in the UB would be a worthy guide and light to lead science closer to how things work. But the history of the universes and our world? The UB claims its reliability will stand for the ages to come....all of them.

101:4.2 (1109.3) Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.



foV, who is hiding text to disprove anything? Why do you resort to psycho babble analysis? Anyhow, I provided the section where it can be found so how is that hidden? For your information, I am not referring to historical facts and religious truths. That is why I omitted that part of the text. I was referring to the physical sciences, as in anthropology. And based on the text, many of TUB's statements regarding it "will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries."

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Rexford wrote:
Celestial revelation is correct and human science is attempting to catch up with it. The problem lies in revealing information without referring to unearned knowledge. What needs revision in the text are explanations which omitted information due to the revelation mandate.


how do you revise "omitted information?" Your statement does not compute; illogical.

Quote:
This, however, does not mean that what was revealed initially in the text is wrong. It simply means it is not complete.


That is not what it says. The authors tell us that their statements on the physical sciences will stand in need of revision as we make new discoveries:

101:4.2 "...within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. "

The reason we are told this, Rex, is the authors refuse to divulge "unearned" knowledge. Instead they restate knowledge of the physical sciences of that period. Basically part of the revelation is presented within the framework of human knowledge (science), which is self-correcting.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4152
Anthropology is the study of "history"...the history of people to be more precise. Anthropology, when accurate, can only verify the story/history of humanity.....if one were to believe what the UB says.....in plain language, clearly written and presented.

"...... the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come..."

Definition: Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences.

:roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
fanofVan wrote:
Anthropology is the study of "history"...the history of people to be more precise. Anthropology, when accurate, can only verify the story/history of humanity.....if one were to believe what the UB says.....in plain language, clearly written and presented.

"...... the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come..."

Definition: Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences.

:roll:


PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, foV :roll:

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4152
brooklyn_born wrote:
fanofVan wrote:
Anthropology is the study of "history"...the history of people to be more precise. Anthropology, when accurate, can only verify the story/history of humanity.....if one were to believe what the UB says.....in plain language, clearly written and presented.

"...... the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come..."

Definition: Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences.

:roll:


PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, foV :roll:


Also, and still......the study of history. Don't get the confusion. Some are more confident in current scientific theory that science itself is....which primarily, so far, seems to best disprove prior scientific theories. But for those intent on disproving or disagreeing with the UB, science offers much to grasp at....for a little while anyway.

:wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am +0000
Posts: 432
BB just give it up dude. Physical sciences = things like chemistry, physics. Knowledge of abstract models concerning material reality that have predictive value.

Historic facts = anything to do with the historical record. This would include historical anthropology, geologic history, etc. This would include the evolution of human species.

Really simple litmus test: if the statement is one that pertains to an event in the past, then it will stand the test of time.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
quil wrote:
BB just give it up dude. Physical sciences = things like chemistry, physics. Knowledge of abstract models concerning material reality that have predictive value.

Historic facts = anything to do with the historical record. This would include historical anthropology, geologic history, etc. This would include the evolution of human species.

Really simple litmus test: if the statement is one that pertains to an event in the past, then it will stand the test of time.



So carbon dating and analysis of fossil records have no basis in physical science? yea, sure (sarcasm). We will agree to disagree.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4152
brooklyn_born wrote:
quil wrote:
BB just give it up dude. Physical sciences = things like chemistry, physics. Knowledge of abstract models concerning material reality that have predictive value.

Historic facts = anything to do with the historical record. This would include historical anthropology, geologic history, etc. This would include the evolution of human species.

Really simple litmus test: if the statement is one that pertains to an event in the past, then it will stand the test of time.



So carbon dating and analysis of fossil records have no basis in physical science? yea, sure (sarcasm). We will agree to disagree.


Science is still recalibrating the art of carbon dating...indeed, the newest form of dating is less than 3 years old and is somewhat effective up to 35,000-50,000 years back due to the new sediment comparison. Atmospheric carbon content varies and newer carbon onto older carbon samples greatly distorts timelines. This is not an exact science yet, especially for samples over 50,000 years old. Science has a lot of work to improve every aspect of its noble aspirations its method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Some interesting facts here.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
fanofVan wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:
fanofVan wrote:
Anthropology is the study of "history"...the history of people to be more precise. Anthropology, when accurate, can only verify the story/history of humanity.....if one were to believe what the UB says.....in plain language, clearly written and presented.

"...... the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come..."

Definition: Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences.

:roll:


PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, foV :roll:


Also, and still......the study of history. Don't get the confusion. Some are more confident in current scientific theory that science itself is....which primarily, so far, seems to best disprove prior scientific theories. But for those intent on disproving or disagreeing with the UB, science offers much to grasp at....for a little while anyway.

:wink:


There is no confusion except at your end, I believe, foV. The authors, without equivocation, admit, willingly, to scientific inaccuracy in the papers, born of a self-imposed restriction against revealing "unearned or premature knowledge." In lieu of imparting scientifically accurate facts yet undiscovered, the authors determined it judicious to present certain revelations within the framework of existing corpus of scientific knowledge subject to revision; science is self-correcting. A salient point to note is the candidness of the authors in the following pronouncement: "many of our statements... will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries." Even more telling is the relatively short period of time they anticipate this to occur, as stipulated in the following: "within a few short years..." We will have to agree to disagree on this issue, foV.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
fanofVan wrote:
brooklyn_born wrote:
quil wrote:
BB just give it up dude. Physical sciences = things like chemistry, physics. Knowledge of abstract models concerning material reality that have predictive value.

Historic facts = anything to do with the historical record. This would include historical anthropology, geologic history, etc. This would include the evolution of human species.

Really simple litmus test: if the statement is one that pertains to an event in the past, then it will stand the test of time.



So carbon dating and analysis of fossil records have no basis in physical science? yea, sure (sarcasm). We will agree to disagree.


Science is still recalibrating the art of carbon dating...indeed, the newest form of dating is less than 3 years old and is somewhat effective up to 35,000-50,000 years back due to the new sediment comparison. Atmospheric carbon content varies and newer carbon onto older carbon samples greatly distorts timelines. This is not an exact science yet, especially for samples over 50,000 years old. Science has a lot of work to improve every aspect of its noble aspirations its method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Some interesting facts here.

8)



Science is self-correcting; scientific facts attested by the revelators reflect current scientific discovery. That is why the clause --revision-- is placed in the text, an auto-correct feature if you will, for new discovery. But it should be stated new discoveries do not imply necessarily they won't be in need of self-correction in the future.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Brooklyn_born wrote:
So carbon dating and analysis of fossil records have no basis in physical science? yea, sure (sarcasm). We will agree to disagree.
It has been sufficiently explained to you that the science of anthropology/archaeology is in piecing together human history from dated archaeological finds. Radiometric dating is just a convenient (but error prone) tool. Anthropology/archaeology an sich is not a physical science such as physics and chemistry which study the properties and nature of general physical matter. If you don’t understand this difference, then that must be your problem..

Brooklyn_born wrote:
… The authors, without equivocation, admit, willingly, to scientific inaccuracy …
You (again) misrepresent what is written in TUB: "many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision" (101.4.2). To "stand in need of revision" is not the same as being inaccurate or wrong. What would be the point of incorporating inaccurate information in a revelation intended to clarify knowledge by:

1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.


(101:4.5)..?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 937
Location: Brooklyn NY
Bart wrote:
It has been sufficiently explained to you that the science of anthropology/archaeology is in piecing together human history from dated archaeological finds. Radiometric dating is just a convenient (but error prone) tool. Anthropology/archaeology an sich is not a physical science such as physics and chemistry which study the properties and nature of general physical matter. If you don’t understand this difference, then that must be your problem..


What has been sufficiently explained to me, Bart? someone's opinion ? lol okay. You're funny :badgrin: .

Quote:
You (again) misrepresent what is written in TUB: "many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision" (101.4.2). To "stand in need of revision" is not the same as being inaccurate or wrong.


So what is the purpose of revision?


Quote:
What would be the point of incorporating inaccurate information in a revelation intended to clarify knowledge by:

1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.


(101:4.5)..?



They explain it as not revealing "unearned and premature knowledge." Instead they work the information within the framework of existing knowledge. I think it is a fairly simple concept... not sure why you find difficulty in or are challenged by this.

_________________
BB, the Urantian Gnostic606


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  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