Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:20 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
article in todays news says the ~4billion year old sedimentary rocks w/carbon basis for piecing together the timeline of evolution of life is wrong...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110518121227.htm

Quote:
Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.


the carbon is suspected to be millions of years younger they say....which just says they don't know how old it is but it's far from the same as the rock it's in.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
That's a great find. If the discrepancy is large enough it could go a long way toward resolving some of the gaps between the UB and science, and that would be a tremendous evidential boost for the UB.

_________________
Todd


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

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:40 pm +0000
Posts: 2565


4. THE LIMITATIONS OF REVELATION

101:4.1 Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.

101:4.2 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.

101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.

101:4.4 In the last analysis, religion is to be judged by its fruits, according to the manner and the extent to which it exhibits its own inherent and divine excellence.

101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently 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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
I'm not sure how those quotations from the UB help us to answer the questions about the age of life on Earth. Do they mean that we should simply accept that the UB may just be wrong on this and other points of historical and scientific fact?

_________________
Todd


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

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:40 pm +0000
Posts: 2565
HI Todd 8)

NO , Sorry for any confusion by me on my part ,
I Simply ment that That the info of the UB Revelation
Is limited , in that were not told everything ,
We must do much of our own homework
to learn and earn the answers that will fit the puzzel
of questions we have about what the UB Says .
Its my opinion that new scientific discoveries
will in time validate and fully answer the questions we have about the age of life on Earth.
And it will validate what the UB Says ,

Like the New Stuff Makalu Posted
''article in todays news says the ~4billion year old sedimentary rocks w/carbon basis for piecing together the timeline of evolution of life is wrong...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121227.htm


Quote:
Carbon found within ancient rocks has played a crucial role developing a time line for the emergence of biological life on the planet billions of years ago. But applying cutting-edge technology to samples of ancient rocks from northern Canada has revealed the carbon-based minerals may be much younger than the rock they inhabit, a team of researchers report in the latest edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.


the carbon is suspected to be millions of years younger they say....which just says they don't know how old it is but it's far from the same as the rock it's in. ''

101:4.2 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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
I Think the revelators basically say here (101:4.1-5), that they did not present "unearned or premature knowledge" regarding cosmology and physics in order to avoid errors which may tempt future students of such a revelation "to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain." (101:4.1)

Consequently, "within a few short years many of the statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries." (101:4.2) However, this does not necessarily imply the presence of factual errors in The Urantia Book. Revisions may also concern "the co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations" (101:4.5), i.e., not a revision of the revealed facts and observations.

Mathematical Chaos Theory (first formulated in the 1960s) may be an example of "unearned knowledge" which the revelators were not allowed to use (in this case as a concise model or metaphor of reality) and which would require a complete revision of (at least) the physics and cosmology Papers. :)

Anyway, cosmological revelations clarify knowledge by:
Quote:
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)

I’m not sure whether the revealed knowledge that material (premind) life on Urantia started only 550Mya is an uninspired physical/cosmological factual statement (possibly "illuminating the spiritual teachings contained in the revelation"), or an inspired spiritual statement, or both. But the revealed date of 550Mya must be correct..

Science (biocosmology) will never be able to determine exactly when life appeared on Earth. But we may eventually find enough evidence to prefer TUB’s date of 550Mya over current estimates of almost 4Bya, or vice versa. Of course, the first outcome would be much more interesting.. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Thanks Bart and Coop for your comments on this. I'm inclined to agree that the phrase "in need of revision" is best understood as indicating that the material is scientifically incomplete, rather than erroneous. It just makes no sense to use errors as a means to achieve "authoritative elimination of error."

Furthermore, errors "on the face of" the science implies that which might at first glance, or superficially, look like error.

I interpret "unearned knowledge" to refer to things that are, as the saying goes, not even on our screen yet. "Earned" knowledge would refer to things that we were in a position to know in 1934 or so, even if that knowledge hadn't yet been developed and secured. Continental drift would be an example of that. Even though it wasn't yet accepted when the UB was written, or published, it was "earned".

Whether science will ever line up with the UB on the matter of the age of life is unknown, but I regard it as one of the more interesting things to keep an eye on. If it does, I don't think this would count as "unearned" knowledge either.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:29 pm +0000
Posts: 2441
hmmm that is interesting, so the assumption by science when it comes to Radiometric dating is that things like Carbon decay at a constant rate of time because they are closed systems? Essentially the theory is that inside these rock's they are existing in a vacuum?.

If thats true than that entire theory is debunked by U.B and they go into detail why.

Unfortunetly science is my worst subject hahaha, so I will just sit back and read what you guy's have to say.

_________________
StrongcharactersRnotderivedfromnotdoingwrongbutratherfrom
actuallydoingrightUnselfishnesisthebadgeofhumangreatnes
Thehighestlevelsofselfrealizationareatainedbyworshipandservice
Thehapyandefectivepersonismotivatednotbyfearofwrongdoingbutby
loveofrightdoing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
boomshuka wrote:
hmmm that is interesting, so the assumption by science when it comes to Radiometric dating is that things like Carbon decay at a constant rate of time because they are closed systems? Essentially the theory is that inside these rock's they are existing in a vacuum?.

If thats true than that entire theory is debunked by U.B and they go into detail why.

Unfortunetly science is my worst subject hahaha, so I will just sit back and read what you guy's have to say.


well I think the carbon (for instance) decay rate is based on atomic physics and not so much an issue as many things other than the decay rate that change the amount of carbon in the material being dated. One of those is a result of the assumption that the planet is a closed system which doesn't account for changes in atmospheric carbon caused by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
ubizmo wrote:
Whether science will ever line up with the UB on the matter of the age of life is unknown, but I regard it as one of the more interesting things to keep an eye on.
Let’s agree that radiometric dating methods used to determine the age of the earliest fossils found on Earth, even the age of our planet, do have their drawbacks. For example, volcanic rocks from Hawaii, extruded under water only 170 years ago, gave potassium/argon ages ranging from 160 million years to 3 billion years! And quite a few radiometric estimates of the age of volcanic rocks seem to indicate that they are older than the universe itself (about 14 billion years, according to big bang theories)..

Radiometric potassium-argon dating is the most commonly used method to determine the age of fossils (i.e. life on Earth) which are (structurally) preserved in volcanic rocks. Potassium-argon dating basically relies on the steady radioactive decay of the element potassium into argon. Argon is a gas over an extremely wide range of temperatures, which means that any argon would escape while the rock was molten like carbon dioxide escaping from a glass of soda. Thus, after solidification, any argon found trapped in the crystal structure is thought to be the result of radioactive decay of potassium. The measured amount of argon can then be used as a clock, indicating the age of the mineral and any fossils it may contain.

Now, apparently, life originated in an aquatic environment or ocean. So, the earliest fossils were preserved in underwater lava streams. Inevitably, argon gas must have been trapped in the rapidly cooled volcanic rock and/or by the water pressure. That introduces a structural overestimation of radiometric estimates of the age of early fossils or (oceanic) life on Earth.

I’m not saying this completely explains how, as per TUB, Earth can be about 4 billion years old, whereas life on Earth is only 550 million years old, and whereas science indicates that both are almost the same age (about 4 billion years), but it may be a very important factor.. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
Well another one of the few and far between biomarker based evidences for life before ~550 million years ago proved wrong in the days news:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525141540.htm

They only had one place in the world with PreCambrian rock assumed to have formed as a result of methane eating microbes in oxygen free ocean sediments...crystal structure shows it was formed at high temps deep underground. Significance is:

Quote:
"It is an interesting fact of the geologic record that, despite a well-preserved record of carbonates beginning 3.5 billion years ago, the first 3 billion years of Earth history does not record evidence of methane oxidation. This is a curious absence.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Makalu wrote:
Well another one of the few and far between biomarker based evidences for life before ~550 million years ago proved wrong in the days news:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525141540.htm

They only had one place in the world with PreCambrian rock assumed to have formed as a result of methane eating microbes in oxygen free ocean sediments...crystal structure shows it was formed at high temps deep underground. Significance is:

Quote:
"It is an interesting fact of the geologic record that, despite a well-preserved record of carbonates beginning 3.5 billion years ago, the first 3 billion years of Earth history does not record evidence of methane oxidation. This is a curious absence.


Wow, this is getting very interesting!

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
yeah...here's something you might find interesting if you've not read of it before is the Avalon Explosion that they date 33 million years before the Cambrian Explosion:

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2580/the-avalon-explosion

As mentioned in the article one of the problems Darwin and everyone since has had with the Cambrian Explosion is that there's no evidence for long periods of animal evolution before it. Anyway nothings changed on that front really...just this earlier explosion of Ediacara which I find fascinating (and consistent with the Urantia books portrayal of the sudden appearance of new species). They aren't sure how these soft-bodied organisms came to be fossilized since it pretty much doesn't happen anywhere in the fossil record. And they aren't sure what to classify them as...and the morphology (what little they can tell from the fossil) is interesting. One they thought was the body of the organism and later found out it was a holdfast for a frond like thing...anyway here's the wiki on that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Makalu wrote:
Well another one of the few and far between biomarker based evidences for life before ~550 million years ago proved wrong in the days news:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525141540.htm

They only had one place in the world with PreCambrian rock assumed to have formed as a result of methane eating microbes in oxygen free ocean sediments...crystal structure shows it was formed at high temps deep underground. Significance is:

Quote:
"It is an interesting fact of the geologic record that, despite a well-preserved record of carbonates beginning 3.5 billion years ago, the first 3 billion years of Earth history does not record evidence of methane oxidation. This is a curious absence.
I don’t quite see how (as the title of the article suggests) these results debunk methane theories on the end of a 'snowball' ice age. Any ice age may perfectly well have come to an end by the release of the greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, regardless whether or not methane was eaten (oxidized) by microbes and subsequently deposited in rocks. And, without organic life, abiotic (geohydrothermal) methane would have been present on Earth ~550 million years ago. Methane has been synthetically created in the laboratory and abiotic methane is abundant on Titan, the largest (frozen) moon of Saturn.

It remains interesting, however, that cap dolostone from south China contains a lot less of the carbon-13 isotope than is normally found in these types of carbonate rocks. Apparently the carbon in these specific Chinese rocks has an organic origin (organic matter has a lower ratio of carbon-13, basically because photosynthesis preferentially concentrates carbon-12). This may indicate some metamorphic event, or the sparse existence of very isolated sites of (microbial) life on Earth ~550 Mya, which would be compatible with TUB’s account of how life started on Earth.

Finally, indeed, the apparent facts that "the first 3 billion years of Earth history do not record evidence of methane oxidation", and "carbon-13-depleted carbonate rocks that formed at methane seeps are only found during the later 400 million years of Earth history", seem to indicate that methane eating organisms (methanotrophs) didn’t exist before ~550 Mya, which supports TUB’s notion that no life existed before ~550 Mya.. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 972
Bart wrote:
I don’t quite see how (as the title of the article suggests) these results debunk methane theories on the end of a 'snowball' ice age. Any ice age may perfectly well have come to an end by the release of the greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, regardless whether or not methane was eaten (oxidized) by microbes and subsequently deposited in rocks. And, without organic life, abiotic (geohydrothermal) methane would have been present on Earth ~550 million years ago. Methane has been synthetically created in the laboratory and abiotic methane is abundant on Titan, the largest (frozen) moon of Saturn.

It remains interesting, however, that cap dolostone from south China contains a lot less of the carbon-13 isotope than is normally found in these types of carbonate rocks. Apparently the carbon in these specific Chinese rocks has an organic origin (organic matter has a lower ratio of carbon-13, basically because photosynthesis preferentially concentrates carbon-12). This may indicate some metamorphic event, or the sparse existence of very isolated sites of (microbial) life on Earth ~550 Mya, which would be compatible with TUB’s account of how life started on Earth.

Finally, indeed, the apparent facts that "the first 3 billion years of Earth history do not record evidence of methane oxidation", and "carbon-13-depleted carbonate rocks that formed at methane seeps are only found during the later 400 million years of Earth history", seem to indicate that methane eating organisms (methanotrophs) didn’t exist before ~550 Mya, which supports TUB’s notion that no life existed before ~550 Mya.. :)


well the theory is that the atmosphere was already chock full of methane and needs carbon dioxide to warm it up and methane eating microbes produce CO2. But I don't think the snowball/slushball earth theory ever held much water anyway in the scientific community so didn't bother mentioning the media take. Was disputed here years ago:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323104746.htm

you can read the disputes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

paleomagnetic "evidence" yielded three different orientations here:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1994.../93JB01723.shtml

The carbon in the Chinese dolomite isn't organic...the new method used is an estimate of the temperature at which the carbon was formed and way too high for life to exist.

Quote:
Our findings show that what happened in these rocks happened at very high temperatures, and abiologically,


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google Feedfetcher


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group