Switch to full style
A forum for skeptics to tactfully voice their skepticism.
Post a reply

Re: Age of life on Urantia

Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:35 am +0000

well there's not much consensus about when the earth could have supported life and, perhaps as a result, not much effort to correlate evidence for early life with what we suspect the environment was like at the time.

seems like i recall reading in the papers that the formation of our solar system was not the "normal", more common way inhabitable planets are formed...but cant locate it at the moment...maybe i'm mistaken. but if that's correct it's going to make it harder for astronomers to find any other examples of planets formed like ours to give support to an "angona" type theory

good article about planet formation issues here:

Monmatia Revisted by Bill Laurune

Re: Age of life on Urantia

Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:24 am +0000

I don’t think this is what you were looking for but I always found the last part very interesting.

(15:5.14) There are numerous other techniques for evolving suns and segregating planets, but the foregoing procedures suggest the methods whereby the vast majority of stellar systems and planetary families are brought into existence. To undertake to describe all the various techniques involved in stellar metamorphosis and planetary evolution would require the narration of almost one hundred different modes of sun formation and planetary origin. As your star students scan the heavens, they will observe phenomena indicative of all these modes of stellar evolution, but they will seldom detect evidence of the formation of those small, nonluminous collections of matter which serve as inhabited planets, the most important of the vast material creations.

Re: Age of life on Urantia

Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:11 pm +0000

The preceding quote (15:5.14) taken together with this:

(15:6.14) The cold worlds which have been built up by the assemblage of floating space material, when they happen to be in proper relation to a near-by sun, are the more ideal planets to harbor intelligent inhabitants.

. . . seems to imply that the most typical inhabited world is nonluminous, not a part of a solar system, and out in space by itself.

When all this is considered, it's interesting to think what the following means, as this quote is found in that section of the book that outlines the Worlds of the Nonbreathers.

(49:3.6) You would be more than interested in the planetary conduct of this type of mortal because such a race of beings inhabits a sphere in close proximity to Urantia.

Re: Age of life on Urantia

Sat May 12, 2018 5:49 am +0000

happened to catch a 'Nova' tv show the other day called 'lifes rocky start' where they went gaga over some stromatolites:

ROBERT HAZEN: There's no obvious way that just a chemical, a physical process would form that.


'cept there's this:

We here report laboratory spray deposition experiments that can generate stromatolites and wrinkle structures in the absence of microbes.

and this:

The three well-documented occurrences of three-dimensional stromatolites older than 3.2 Ga meet most criteria for biogenicity except the presence of fossil bacteria. However, they also show features more consistent with nonbiological origins.

and this:

Here we present a morphological characterization of ancient stromatolites that have growth surfaces with self-afime fractal geometry. We deduce, from both the microscopic textures and the fractal dimension, a purely abiotic dynamical model of stromatolite surface growth that combines chemical precipitation on the growing interface, fallout and diffusive rearrangement of suspended sediment, and uncorrelated random noise. This result calls into question the assumption that organisms-even if present-necessarily played an essential role in determining stromatolite morphology during times when precipitation at the sea floor was common, such as the earlier Precambrian.

and a couple more not related to stromatolites:

from Critical testing of Earth’s oldest putative fossil assemblage from the ∼3.5Ga Apex chert, Chinaman Creek, Western Australia:

Credence has been given to the Apex filamentous 'microfossils' because they are claimed to meet all the criteria required of bona fide authentic Archaean microfossils. We do not accept this to be true. Nor do we accept that filamentous structures described as 'microfossils' from the Apex chert are demonstrably biogenic. They fail to meet a wide range of criteria for biogenicity and their occurrence in a geologically plausible context (especially for cyanobacteria) is doubtful. They intergrade morphologically with a range of coexisting abiological bodies, mainly formed as reaction rims around chalcedony spherulites or crystal margins during silification and diagenesis.

and from Reassessing the first appearance of eukaryotes and cyanobacteria

The oldest widely accepted evidence for oxygenic photosynthesis has come from hydrocarbons extracted from 2.7-Gyr-old shales in the Pilbara Craton, Australia, which contain traces of biomarkers (molecular fossils) indicative of eukaryotes and suggestive of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria.... results are inconsistent with an indigenous origin for the biomarkers. Whatever their origin, the biomarkers must have entered the rock after peak metamorphism 2.2 Gyr ago and thus do not provide evidence for the existence of eukaryotes and cyanobacteria in the Archaean eon.

Re: Age of life on Urantia

Mon May 14, 2018 6:10 am +0000

Great research and very interesting! Thanks.

Re: Age of life on Urantia

Mon May 14, 2018 4:39 pm +0000

Wow! I just learned more reading this thread than years of science in high school (we were just switching from fountain pens to ball point). Okay, I was long overdue for an update.

My humble point here is that people thought the claim that birds are direct ancestors of dinosaurs was incorrect as well. It seems to me that the longer the Urantia Book has been around, the more that science has conformed to it.
Post a reply