Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Mon May 21, 2018 3:31 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
See "58:1.1 600,000,000 years ago the commission of Life Carriers sent out from Jerusem arrived on Urantia and began the study of physical conditions preparatory to launching life on world number 606 of the Satania system."

The LCs made a prior visit to study conditions on Urantia. The actual formulation of life took place fifty million years later. That would include simple life, since simple life is still life.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 1:18 pm +0000
Posts: 14
I am of the opinion that life, as it may be characterized by the Urantia Book, is much more complex than what our scientists regard as life. About 550 Million years ago, the Cambrian Explosion of diversity in life occurred. Before this point most "cells" were prokaryotic, and as I understand it (unless I am not distinguishing these cells from archaea), had no nuclear information to pass on. Natural selection occurred, but only on a mechanical level: for instance, if I have a square hole and thousands of different shaped pegs, if i throw enough of these pegs into the air at random then eventually one square peg will fall into the square hole. In other words, life in the Pre-Cambrian was far too mechanistic to actually be considered "life." It was a chemical reaction, a pattern, and hence not in the domain of the Life Carriers but rather the Master Physical Controllers. And this chemical reaction could possibly occur on trillions of different worlds, and is not "life" until the spark of life is given to them. I interpret this spark of life to be a force that initiates the process which eventually leads to a chemical reaction being responsive to the 7 adjutant mind spirits. Here is my evidence:

Quote:
36:5.1 (401.5) It is the presence of the seven adjutant mind-spirits on the primitive worlds that conditions the course of organic evolution; that explains why evolution is purposeful and not accidental. These adjutants represent that function of the mind ministry of the Infinite Spirit which is extended to the lower orders of intelligent life through the operations of a local universe Mother Spirit. The adjutants are the children of the Universe Mother Spirit and constitute her personal ministry to the material minds of the realms. Wherever and whenever such mind is manifest, these spirits are variously functioning.


Quote:
36:5.15 (403.3) Living mind, prior to the appearance of capacity to learn from experience, is the ministry domain of the Master Physical Controllers. Creature mind, before acquiring the ability to recognize divinity and worship Deity, is the exclusive domain of the adjutant spirits. With the appearance of the spiritual response of the creature intellect, such created minds at once become superminded, being instantly encircuited in the spirit cycles of the local universe Mother Spirit.


Quote:
36:6.2 (403.7) Things material may enjoy an independent existence, but life springs only from life. Mind can be derived only from pre-existent mind. Spirit takes origin only from spirit ancestors. The creature may produce the forms of life, but only a creator personality or a creative force can supply the activating living spark


Quote:
36:6.7 (404.5) There are some things connected with the elaboration of life on the evolutionary planets which are not altogether clear to us. We fully comprehend the physical organization of the electrochemical formulas of the Life Carriers, but we do not wholly understand the nature and source of the life-activation spark. We know that life flows from the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. It is more than possible that the Master Spirits are the sevenfold channel of the river of life which is poured out upon all creation. But we do not comprehend the technique whereby the supervising Master Spirit participates in the initial episode of life bestowal on a new planet. The Ancients of Days, we are confident, also have some part in this inauguration of life on a new world, but we are wholly ignorant of the nature thereof. We do know that the Universe Mother Spirit actually vitalizes the lifeless patterns and imparts to such activated plasm the prerogatives of organismal reproduction. We observe that these three are the levels of God the Sevenfold, sometimes designated as the Supreme Creators of time and space; but otherwise we know little more than Urantia mortals — simply that concept is inherent in the Father, expression in the Son, and life realization in the Spirit.


Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume from these quotes that all "life" before the Cambrian explosion were merely patterns that were unresponsive to the Adjutant mind spirits. Once the life-initiation spark was bestowed, then evolution allowed these creatures to develop low orders of mind that were responsive to the mind spirits: Life.

This explanation keeps the Urantia Papers consistent with science as it is understood, and does not allow the need for special interpretations and theories of flawed science. Its the best I could come up with. I would appreciate any feedback, as I am very interested in this topic.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 618
i think i see what you're saying...but i'm really tired at the moment and i may be completely off base. what you've said is interesting and worthy of further study i think but there's a couple of things that don't gel in my mind at the moment.

the bacteria are all prokaryotic and very simple mechanical creatures and yet they are described in the UB as being living evolving organisms....or devolving and appeared subsequent to the Mother Spirits activation of the Life Carriers plasm. likewise the simplest mechanical minded creatures appeared after the initial life implantation which seems to have been some unicellular algae from what the UB describes.

and i'm thinking that if what you've said is correct then neither prokaryotic bacteria nor mindless algae should qualify as life and yet the way i read the papers they do qualify as life. so i guess i dont think that the domain of the Master Physical Controllers ministry (which the quote you've provided describes as being over living mind) somehow predates the Life Carrier implantations...i think they just have two different functions in the universe.

thankya for sharing...it interests me too O:)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 663
LWatson, I'm guessing that you're pondering why some scientists believe that life is more than 3 billion years old on this planet. The evidence they consider is essentially chemical. A compound, that as far as we know today is only produced by living organisms, has been found in rocks that are attested to be several billion years old.

The three main problems with that assessment are 1) the assumption that those compounds can only be produced by living organisms 2) that the rocks in question are actually that old 3) that the chemical and nuclear conditions in place at the time the rocks incorporated the compounds are the same conditions that apply now


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
LWatson wrote:
I am of the opinion that life, as it may be characterized by the Urantia Book, is much more complex than what our scientists regard as life. About 550 Million years ago, the Cambrian Explosion of diversity in life occurred. Before this point most "cells" were prokaryotic, and as I understand it (unless I am not distinguishing these cells from archaea), had no nuclear information to pass on.


This is mistaken on two levels. First, even though prokaryotic bacteria don't have nuclei, they do have genomes and pass on genetic information. Second, eukaryotes go back two billion years, long before the Cambrian explosion.
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main ... zoic3.html

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 618
Quote:
eukaryotes go back two billion years


i considered posting this a few weeks ago...but just fyi recent and better science has pushed that forward a half a billion years....chip, chip, chippin' away :wink:

Contaminated samples have evidently created some confusion in the timetable of life. On the basis of ultra-clean analyses, an international team, including scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, has disproved supposed evidence that eukaryotes originated 2.5 to 2.8 billion years ago. In contrast to prokaryotes such as bacteria, eukaryotes have a nucleus. Some researchers thought they had discovered molecular remnants of living organisms in rock samples up to 2.8 billion years old. However, as the current study shows, these molecular traces were introduced by contamination. The oldest evidence for the existence of eukaryotes is now provided by microfossils that are ca. 1.5 billion years old.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Makalu wrote:
i considered posting this a few weeks ago...but just fyi recent and better science has pushed that forward a half a billion years....chip, chip, chippin' away :wink:


Well, that discovery doesn't really change anything. Eukaryotes are still much older than 550 million years. Moreover, as you pointed out, there is no reasonable scientific standard according to which bacteria and other prokaryotes fail to count as life, and indeed the UB itself recognizes them as life. So whether or not the oldest eukaryotes are two billion years or a billion and a half years old, there is simply no doubt that life on this planet is older than 550 million years.

There's a lot of back and forth in this thread, and I don't mean to intrude on this forum anymore, but however one hopes to reconcile science with the UB, I don't think there's any hope for gerrymandering the definition of "life" to do it.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 618
well between the contaminated samples and the other recent research showing how the "evidence of oldest life on earth" was natural actions misidentified as cell fossils it shows to any sincere truth seeker that the state of the scientific art in this field isn't perfect and above all questioning or doubt. If these scientists had believed that then they wouldnt have done the new research proving the old wrong....stay tuned. :badgrin:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am +0000
Posts: 429
Indeed, I agree that warping the definition of life is not the answer. If you consider yourself a genuine believer in the authenticity and authority of the FER, then you know the historical facts presented within will stand the test of time.

Thus reconciliation between TUB and current geologic and biologic sciences is had by continued pursuit of truth in each field. It will take time and nothing but time.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
quil wrote:
Indeed, I agree that warping the definition of life is not the answer. If you consider yourself a genuine believer in the authenticity and authority of the FER, then you know the historical facts presented within will stand the test of time.

Thus reconciliation between TUB and current geologic and biologic sciences is had by continued pursuit of truth in each field. It will take time and nothing but time.


It's certainly true that if the authenticity and authority of the UB are what the UB claims for itself, then the historical information presented in it should turn out to be true. It's not correct to say, however, that if you believe in the authenticity and authority of the UB then you know the historical material is true. Believing one doesn't give you knowledge of the other.

Makalu wrote:
the state of the scientific art in this field isn't perfect and above all questioning or doubt.


That's correct. The state of scientific knowledge in any field isn't perfect or beyond question, and never will be. All scientific findings are open to revision in the light of new discoveries. The most we can say is this: Given our present understanding of the age of life on this planet, the UB's claim that "all" life was formulated 550 million years ago appears to be false. That out present understanding may turn out to be wrong doesn't demonstrate that it will turn out to be wrong, or that it will turn out to be wrong in precisely the way that would make the UB's claim true.

And remember, there are many statements in the UB that are in agreement with current scientific and historical understanding. If we are to apply the principle that science and history aren't perfect in a consistent way, we must also concede that those points of agreement may, upon further discovery, turn out to be disagreements.

In short, if we are going to appeal to science and history to validate the UB when they are in agreement, but not trust science and history when they are in disagreement with the UB, we undermine the validation as well.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am +0000
Posts: 429
I contend that, for a genuine believer, the exercise of validating historical facts within the TUB with current scientific understanding in and of itself is almost pointless since we are told that said facts presented within the text will "stand the test of time." That means that, if you truly accept the FER, you must throw nearly everything you think you know out the door, start fresh with the truth of the revelation, and use the presented facts as a foundation to rebuild your worldview bit by bit.

I understand this is the Skeptic's Corner so in no way am I saying that you necessarily have to see it like this, but what I am saying is that if one accepts the FER as genuine, then logical consistency demands that one accepts such historical facts presented as valid.

To do otherwise would mean one of two things:

  1. The so-called believer doubts the integrity of the work. This really belies that one never really accepted the revelation whole-heartedly to begin with. It reveals insecurity.
  2. Or, if the faith is genuinely strong but one still concludes that the historical facts could turn out to be wrong, then they are not being logically consistent in their thinking and they are committing an error and reaching a false conclusion, plain and simple. I mean no offense to anyone if any was taken.

Personally, I do not merely believe in the authenticity and authority of TUB. Rather, I have faith in its reality. It took me awhile to get here. But this faith allows me to trust what is presented and gives me a tool called faith-certainty which effectively allows me to know those are the objective historical facts on which humanity must base its worldview. I do not say this to boast or spiritually shun or anything like that. I merely offer my perspective. Do I have perfect faith? Of course not! As far as I am aware, there was only one human on this world who ever could make such a claim...

Ironically, with such faith-certainty one is liberated from the incessant urge to validate the facts that they previously entertained since the facts are taken as a given. Sure, it's fun to see when things line up, but as you observed, that could be fleeting. Science is fickle. As long as ignorance pervades, it ought to be.

Another irony with respect to this topic is that one of the biggest messages of the book is to urge us to stop being fact-finders and start being truth-seekers. Facts mean nothing without truth. Truth must come first.

I suppose I should also chip in to the topic at hand-- 550 million years ago is definitely a huge discrepancy between 4 billion years ago. Another thing to consider is that we are told the Life Carriers manipulated the environment to stimulate phase changes in the evolution of life. One such mechanism known to cause rapid mutations is radiation, and if radiation levels were higher then (a possibility I believe someone pointed out earlier in this thread), it is very likely to account for the discrepancy. The Life Carriers work directly with the Morontia Power Supervisors, who could easily manifest this type of energy at will.

I'm also not convinced contamination via geophysical process and possibly even sampling technique doesn't play a role, either.

Also-- has it ever occurred to you, in your gut, that life originating so close to the date of the physical origin of earth just doesn't make that much sense? Even before I really understood TUB, that always felt wrong to me. Same with the universe only being 13 billion years old. Both figures just evoke a sense of disharmony with a fundamental, indescribable intuition of reality (what I later learned is the cosmic mind).


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
I agree with quil. I too, do not only believe in the authenticity of the UB but I have faith in it. This does not mean that I consider the UB to be inerrant. I believe its historical facts are absolute and will stand the test of time but its scientific truths are not. But I believe they are the highest truths that we can possibly attain on earth.

Also the current scientific aging and distance measurements do not take into consideration the cyclic space respiration that I suspect has significant effect.

The UB says that the universe is at its midpoint of its expansion period, meaning expansion started about 500 million years ago. If life started on earth 550 million years ago, then it was at around 50 million years before the end of its contraction period. I do not know what effect this may have on the aging measurement but I do suspect it has.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
quil wrote:
I understand this is the Skeptic's Corner so in no way am I saying that you necessarily have to see it like this, but what I am saying is that if one accepts the FER as genuine, then logical consistency demands that one accepts such historical facts presented as valid.


Well said, and I agree. Acceptance of one entails acceptance of the other.

Acceptance is not knowledge.

Quote:
To do otherwise would mean one of two things:

  1. The so-called believer doubts the integrity of the work. This really belies that one never really accepted the revelation whole-heartedly to begin with. It reveals insecurity.
  2. Or, if the faith is genuinely strong but one still concludes that the historical facts could turn out to be wrong, then they are not being logically consistent in their thinking and they are committing an error and reaching a false conclusion, plain and simple. I mean no offense to anyone if any was taken.


Following the first option, there are some, such as Ernest Moyer, who believe the UB was originally authoritative but eventually was corrupted. That certainly falls short of whole-hearted acceptance.

Quote:
Personally, I do not merely believe in the authenticity and authority of TUB. Rather, I have faith in its reality. It took me awhile to get here. But this faith allows me to trust what is presented and gives me a tool called faith-certainty which effectively allows me to know those are the objective historical facts on which humanity must base its worldview.


I agree with the link between faith and trust. In fact, I'd say faith just is trust. Certainty, however, is another thing. Certainty is an attitude one may or may not have toward what one believes. People are certain about many, many things; their certainty entails precisely nothing about the truth of those things.

Faith (trust) and certainty, apart or together, do not add up to knowledge. There are very many Mormons who trust the Book of Mormon and are certain that it is an authentic revelation. Their faith and certainty do not show that they know it's a revelation.

Quote:
Ironically, with such faith-certainty one is liberated from the incessant urge to validate the facts that they previously entertained since the facts are taken as a given. Sure, it's fun to see when things line up, but as you observed, that could be fleeting. Science is fickle. As long as ignorance pervades, it ought to be.


I'm not sure whether this counts as a "liberation" as much as a detachment. If scientific discoveries don't count for much when they go against the UB, they don't count for much when they agree with it either, so there's no much reason to care. When I was somewhat (slightly) active in the UB community, I knew some readers with scientific background who did their best to ignore the so-called "science in the UB."

Quote:
Also-- has it ever occurred to you, in your gut, that life originating so close to the date of the physical origin of earth just doesn't make that much sense?


The problem of the origin of life, early or not, is one reason why I'm not an atheist.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:17 am +0000
Posts: 137
It is no coincidence that life began at or about the time of this cycle of space expansion. Radiation cannot occur in totality without space expansion.

"Let there be light" and there was light. And then there can be life. That was about a half a billion years ago, the beginning of our cosmic daytime. By this reasoning we have about a half billion years of daylight left that will sustain biologic evolutionary life. After that there will be a billion years of cosmic night. All life at that time will be confined to the architectural spheres, which have there own light source. And in one and a half billion years there will again be space expansion and radiation and a whole new set of DNA to experiment with. Just a thought.


Last edited by Johnnybones on Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:13 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 618
ubizmo wrote:
Makalu wrote:
the state of the scientific art in this field isn't perfect and above all questioning or doubt.


That's correct. The state of scientific knowledge in any field isn't perfect or beyond question, and never will be. All scientific findings are open to revision in the light of new discoveries. The most we can say is this: Given our present understanding of the age of life on this planet, the UB's claim that "all" life was formulated 550 million years ago appears to be false. That out present understanding may turn out to be wrong doesn't demonstrate that it will turn out to be wrong, or that it will turn out to be wrong in precisely the way that would make the UB's claim true.

And remember, there are many statements in the UB that are in agreement with current scientific and historical understanding. If we are to apply the principle that science and history aren't perfect in a consistent way, we must also concede that those points of agreement may, upon further discovery, turn out to be disagreements.

In short, if we are going to appeal to science and history to validate the UB when they are in agreement, but not trust science and history when they are in disagreement with the UB, we undermine the validation as well.


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>

i'm aware that science and history will never achieve perfect certainty and can only shoot for increasing degrees of probability. And i'm also aware that science and the UB may never be in complete agreement. but that brings up another point to my posting of the recent research which is that this current trend is towards more agreement with the UB rather than away from it. there has been, and will be, research in stark contrast to the science in the UB and i dont ignore that, but in my 37 years of studying the UB and the associated findings of science i sincerely have seen an overall trend towards agreement with the UB especially in the fields of genetic research and pre-historic archeology.

regarding the evolution of life on earth, there are some known issues with the relative stratigraphy dating methods and with radiometry that may never be resolved...the dating may always be "iffy"...albeit there are certainly some things that could be done even now to improve the metrics, time and money permitted.

i think someday science and the UB will come to a close agreement over what happened and in what chronological order but not necessarily when it happened...in fact if you throw out all the pre ~550 million years ago stuff they are already close. i'm content with ballpark dating and these two recent research articles put things much much closer to being in the ballpark then they were a month ago.

it's worth noting that the dates given in the UB are obviously rounded off by millions of years.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Majestic-12 [Bot]


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