Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:21 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 158 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:32 pm +0000
Posts: 474
Location: sonarington
a little dialoguing on whatever comes to mind for me. i'm not a skeptic of the UB too much, i enjoy it very much, but i have a lot of negative processing to do if i want to be happy, joyous and free in a tub way, so i figure the skeptic's corner is the best place for me. a random search on a random word comes up to my mind as destroy, let's see what i get.

P.168 - §2 The nucleus of the physical system to which your sun and its associated planets belong is the center of the onetime Andronover nebula.

i did a word search on andronover, but apparently it isn't in the human lexicon. i do enjoy all the scientific knowledge that tub supplies.

P.168 - §2 This former spiral nebula was slightly distorted by the gravity disruptions associated with the events which were attendant upon the birth of your solar system, and which were occasioned by the near approach of a large neighboring nebula.

nothing like the big picture "clearing" of events in a big way to the mortal mind. it truly helps me get the big picture idea of creation, especially concerning god, which my mortal mind craves.

P.168 - §2 This near collision changed Andronover into a somewhat globular aggregation but did not wholly destroy the two-way procession of the suns and their associated physical groups. Your solar system now occupies a fairly central position in one of the arms of this distorted spiral, situated about halfway from the center out towards the edge of the star stream.

interesting to note how a solar system of "1,000 inhabited worlds" can be so summed up in space. it certainly gives that feeling of no "real" boundaries and everything being connected.

i do like emoticons :( :-x :razz: :oops: :D :-s


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 746
Quote:
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. (paper 101;pg 1109)

I am a skeptic of the UB because there are many things it purports which don't quite add up. It is a well written fabrication, but even so, I have found some truth, meaning, and value contained therein. If the revelators are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts, such as the quotes from pg 168 concerning the Andronover Nebula, then why do they go to such great lengths to reveal many such unproven facts which deny any such limitations?
Quote:
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. (same paper and pg; but the previous paragraph)

So all other books which teach of physical or spiritual origins are incorrect Huh? The UB appears to impart much unearned or premature knowledge, while at the same time, the knowledge which has been humanly discovered, [be it scientific, historical, or religious]; the UB fails to clearly indicate, and mixes it with the supposed religious revelation which a reader could easily mistake as being entirely revelation. Talk about combining the wheat and the chaff!!! No, I do not discard any genuine religious truth I've found in the UB. But at the same time I do not blithely accept unproven scientific or historical facts taught within the UB either.
Quote:
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. (still same paper and page)

This assertion I can agree with because autorevelation is directly from Our Father to the individual; whereas The Urantia Papers are merely the opinions of those who claim to serve God.

P.168 - §2 The nucleus of the physical system to which your sun and its associated planets belong is the center of the onetime Andronover nebula.

Satania is not a uniform physical system, a single astronomic unit or organization... (pg359)

Is this revelation, contradiction, or error? To the best of my knowledge, these quotes are not humanly discovered fact. As is much of the "science" presented in the UB. According to modern astronomy, our solar system orbits the gravitational center of the Milky Way Galaxy and no other nucleus.

P.168 - §2 This former spiral nebula was slightly distorted by the gravity disruptions associated with the events which were attendant upon the birth of your solar system, and which were occasioned by the near approach of a large neighboring nebula.

Modern astronomy does support this assertion, somewhat, as the Milky Way has been distorted according to fairly recent evidence from [I believe] the 2MASS project and others. There appears to be a connecting streamer of gas and dust between the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Milky Way which could be evidence of a gravometric disruption. But astronomy of seventy years ago did not have such evidence. Even so, this quote is largely humanly undiscovered and unproven fact which seems to be forbidden by mandate of their superiors.

P.168 - §2 This near collision changed Andronover into a somewhat globular aggregation but did not wholly destroy the two-way procession of the suns and their associated physical groups. Your solar system now occupies a fairly central position in one of the arms of this distorted spiral, situated about halfway from the center out towards the edge of the star stream.

The first sentence appears to be humanly unproven fact. As for the second sentence, our solar system is thought to be a little more than half-way out from the center of the Milky Way but not located within a spiral arm. According to modern astronomy, our solar system is leaving a major arm and slowly entering a minor arm of the galaxy.

If any of this is "co-ordination and sorting of present day knowledge"; meaning at the time the Urantia Papers were revealed, it was obscure hypothesis and not humanly discovered fact.

No, to my way of thinking someone, a group of mere mortals, has used the "revelators" as a cunning way of promoting their own hidden agendas.

_________________
If You Embrace the Truth, the Truth Will Embrace You!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:31 pm +0000
Posts: 444
Location: NM,USA
Howdy froggy & rhermen,

On Truthbooks Home page you will find a really neat article by Frederick L. Beckner titled "Stars, Galaxies & Superuniverses". To read it go to Orgin, History, Destiny on the Home page. Click on on his link about half way down the page. He has some really interesting thoughts on the subject.

Wendell

_________________
WLM-Seek and ye shall find.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 746
"If our human cosmologists only took these descriptions seriously, our understanding of fundamental cosmic phenomena would be greatly advanced, I believe." [from the "Great Attractor"; by Dr. Stefan H. Tallqvist]

Perhaps, but the scientific method is supposed to be objective. While I understand that we all want to have our faith based belief systems proven to be true, and that Dr. Tallqvist has done his homework; he uses only research and scientific theory which tends to support his belief in the Urantia Book. This is hardly an objective use of the scientific method. Does he include any research, hypothesis, or theory which which tends to disprove the uninspired cosmology of the Urantia Book? After all, this would be fair academic argument, would it not? If the scientific method is to be used to "prove" the UB; then in all fairness---shouldn't it also be used to "prove" the Bible and every spiritually uplifting book available to humankind?

The same goes for Frederick L. Beckner who has gone to great lengths to "prove" the cosmology of the UB. He uses only that which serves his purpose. There are those, of course, who go to great lengths to debunk the efforts of Mr. Beckner as being woefully unscientific. And of course, these debunkers only use that which serves their purpose.

"The Urantia Book contains a description of the universe which one might describe as "Urantian cosmology." This cosmological information, written prior to 1941 by celestial beings, was derived from revelation, not human astronomical science. It is therefore of interest to examine the Urantian cosmology, some 60 years later, to see how this revelation squares with current astronomical knowledge." [Frederick L. Beckner; second paragraph of "Stars, Galaxies & Superuniverses"]

You see, Mr. Beckner makes an assertion [his thesis] which is not supported by the UB!!! To wit: "The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge(1109)."

In any case, the opinions expressed are a reflection of the individual who expressed them, but not necessarily a true reflection of reality. This goes for everyone: you, me, Dr. Tallqvist, Mr. Beckner and even the "revelators" who demonstrate all too human tendencies for purported celestial beings.

Have we not discussed this before Wendell? It is my assertion that this "permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present day knowledge" was limited by the same bias. To my way of thinking, this is the "Great Attractor"; we all want to be "right" and many of us will use our belief in a spiritually uplifting book such as the UB, bible, or others to "prove" it. Perhaps some of us have posed as the "revelators" and created the UB to "prove" they're "right."

"While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve." (UB pg 1109)

If human cosmologists were to take the descriptions of the Urantia Book seriously, as Dr. Tallqvist or Frederick L. Beckner suggests, from then on; their research hypothesis and theories would be inherently biased and unobjective. I have no doubt that human wisdom [and consciousness] is evolving and that there are indeed scientists [and many others] who are gifted with spiritual insight; in my opinion such evolving mortal wisdom, consciousness, or spiritual insight does not have to "prove" the Urantia Book [or others] in order to have truth, meaning, or value.

The beauty of a free-will universe comes from having the spiritual liberty to believe as you choose; but ugliness comes from forcing your self-serving beliefs upon another.

What does Our Father have to tell you about the nature of His Creation?

_________________
If You Embrace the Truth, the Truth Will Embrace You!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:31 pm +0000
Posts: 444
Location: NM,USA
Hi Randy,

I don't believe that Mr. Beckner is trying to force his views on anyone. Remember too my friend that you see the world from your "single eye" so to speak just as others also do. We know that the UB dosen't give us the 100% skinny on creation simply because nobody in creation all of the answers but God and he has chosen not to reveal them all. Therefore all of his creation is in a constant state of growing and learning inculding us wee little humans here on Urantia/Earth. What we believe mostly is what we see, whats tanagable, touchable. Trying to comprehend God's Creation is just about as impossible as trying to comprehend him :!:

Wendell :wink:

_________________
WLM-Seek and ye shall find.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 746
froggy says: "i do enjoy all the scientific knowledge that tub supplies."

I enjoy it too and I mean no disrespect froggy, but it seems to me there are those who take every word of TUB as revelation without bothering to check it out for themself.

Yes, Wendell, I understand that Mr. Beckner isn't trying to force his views on anyone. Neither am I. But when you say: "What we believe mostly is what we see, whats tanagable, touchable. Trying to comprehend God's Creation is just about as impossible as trying to comprehend him." Are you not showing us your "single eye" as well? And those TUB readers who could care less about their brothers and sisters who choose to debunk the UB; are they not showing their "single eye" as well? Just because one can hold the UB in one's hand doesn't prove any authority contained therein. I realize that my opinion is unpopular with some TUB readers and its a reflection of who I am, but just because the UB gives the appearence of authority doesn't mean I must blithely accept it. Even so I respect the academic guidelines followed by debunkers or detractors as well as Beckner, Talqvist, et al. in giving full anotations of works cited or referenced within their essays. Something TUB fails to do relevant to the so-called science it contains; especially since TUB is forbidden to reveal "unearned science" as per mandate from superiors of the revelators.

I find this assertion to be relevant: "By what authority, then, do the liberal Urantians deal with this strange amalgamation of fact and fiction? To explain the hits and misses of scientific theory (as opposed to the pure record of achievement that might be expected from divine authors), The UB contains a disclaimer that turns on the notion of “unearned” science. For detractors (yours truly included), this caveat is transparently clever, sparing the book from any objective evaluation. If its scientific theories are disproved, they can be ascribed to the limited science of the times; if they pan out, they are pointed to as evidence of prescient intelligence." [from the UB hoax site at : http://www.ubhoax.org/uploads/NotOurFault.htm ]

“If the spirits are so wise, why have they never whispered the principles of some new and great invention to the mediums? Why is it that our mechanical inventions all originate in the brains of our natural-born geniuses, or are worked out in the persistent sweat of such men as Thomas A. Edison? What a time and labor saving it would be if the secrets of the wireless-telegraph, or the principles of an internal combustion gas engine, could be secured at a spiritualistic séance. Why is it that these discarnate sprits and spirit beings of invisible space, if they are so interested in human kind, do not whisper to the mediums the cure for cancer, the remedy for infantile paralysis, or the most successful method of treating pneumonia? Why do not these all-wise, omnipresent spirits that hover about our earthly forms, take a greater interest in things that are worth while? Why do they spend so much time telling us where to find lost jack-knives, and other useless trinkets? Why do they waste so much energy in telling us the date on an ancient coin, or the foolish thoughts that went through our heads at some given moment, when there is so much that is worth while that needs to be done on this planet and for its inhabitants? An intelligent visitor cannot go to an average spiritualistic séance, without leaving with the impression that the entities of the spirit land are either infantile, or pure and simple ‘boobs,’ when, after all their laborious effort to contact with the living, they indulge in such puerile and juvenile communications.” [a quote from Dr. Sadler in his 1923 book The Truth About Spiritualism"]

Perhaps the religion, science, and history of the UB coincedently comes from hypotheses contained in comtemporary books which happened to be found in Dr. Sadler's personal library or those of the contact commission? And what Dr. Sadler suggests concerning the debunking of Spiritualism in his day could be objectively applied in all fairness to the Urantia Book as well...now? Dr. Sadler and the contact commisssion show their "single eye" as well. Discarnate entities answer those questions put to them during a so-called seance in the same way the revelators answered questions put to them from the contact commission. How serendipitous is it that the revelators espouse the same ideologies of Dr. Sadler and the contact commission knowing that most people won't actually take the time to verify the facts?

I value sites such as UB hoax because they have taken the time to do their homework from a more unbiased perspective and perhaps their "single eye" is to the UB as Dr. Sadler once was to Spiritualism.

"One would think, then, that Sadler, an established debunker of paranormal quackery and the so-called “custodian” of the “Fifth Epochal Revelation” (i.e., The UB), would have exercised the same scrutiny with the Papers while they were being “revealed” by “angels” as he did with the spiritual mediums of his day. Sadly, such is not the case, as the foregoing exposé will reveal that Dr. Sadler must have turned a blind gimlet eye to the Urantia Papers." [ibid]

_________________
If You Embrace the Truth, the Truth Will Embrace You!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Happy New Year, Randy, Wendell, and froggy!

Quote:
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

So what's up with the science in UB? Why is it even included? The papers dealing with spiritual matters and the life of Jesus are quite powerful and convincing in their own right. Why would the authors, whoever you believe they might be, encumber the virtually unassailable spiritual pronouncements with the obviously vulnerable scientific papers?

Even if, in the future, we find the every bit of the science in UB vindicated by advancements in "standard" science or understanding, the fact remains that in this day "science" hangs like a millstone around the neck of UB. And what is the point of some future vindication if it is obtained at the cost of present misunderstanding? The goal of UB is spiritual, not scientific. And yet the spiritual power is obfuscated in the minds of many by the scientific contentions. So, what's up?

I'm not a UB critic. Nor am I a "true believer". By nature I am an optimistic skeptic. I want the good to be true, but I do not want to pretend the good is true. It would be fine with me if every word in UB were true. But that is hardly my expectation. In fact, I'm certain that it would be quite impossible. I don't believe that any agency, human or otherwise, no matter how well informed or well intentioned, could accurately portray the range of information attempted in UB. The problem is inherent in language. A thousand words are inadequate to describe one picture. Two thousand and ninety-seven pages are just as inadequate to describe what UB attempts to describe. UB is a description of the indescribable. In the narrow perspective, it is bound to fail.

To me, denouncing UB on the basis of the science is just as pointless as trying to validate it on the basis of science. It's not a science book. Which brings me back to my original point. At the very least, the UB authors are pretty smart. Anyone smart enough to write the book should also be smart enough to foresee the negative fallout that the science stuff would sooner or later generate. To me this is a real puzzle. Maybe even a conundrum. Perhaps even an enigma cloaked in mystery.

Ultimately, if every scientific pronouncement in UB turned out to be pure baloney, and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dr. Sadler et al were a bunch of charlatans, it wouldn't make one bit of difference to me. The power and the impact of the life and teachings of Jesus as exemplified in the book are validated by my experience and imprinted in my heart. A tree is known by its fruit, and for me the fruits of UB are sweet. I need know no more than this.
Peace,
Arc


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:29 pm +0000
Posts: 40
Location: Tasmania
Hello Arc,
You have put into a few words something I have been trying to say for ages.

It is the Spirit of the Truth that shines through and it doesn't matter in the least if the whole book is a hoax or a pack of lies.

The same can be said for the Bible, any revelation or channeling, the Spirit of Jesus words, even though he might never have said them, we still benefit from the message.

It is not an entity, it may not be the truth, but it is the Spirit of the Truth.
Mick


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 746
The science of TUB is usually presented in the form of endorsement by the revelators whether us mere mortals find it to be true or erroneous according to our best scientific minds. I believe this is where the obfuscation lies.

Perhaps the UB [on any subject] is neither 100% wheat; nor is it 100% chaff. This is two-dimensional thinking we must evolve beyond. Maybe this book, as well as many others of a similar nature, have been given to this world in an effort to strengthen our ability to discern truth from error as a sort of "homework assignment" if you will. As more of us do our homework; we can share what we've learned with others. But I strongly perceive that we must strive to do our own homework; not merely copy another's. Because when it comes time to take the "test" the answers we give must be as original and uniquely individual as the person taking the "test" and no "cheating" will be allowed. Since the "Teacher" is fully qualified to look into our hearts and discern our true motives; we must "know ourself." The better we truly "know ourself"; the better we'll do on the "test." And it is counter-productive to attempt to "know" someone else, as that won't be part of the "test."

As much as I also value part IV; it none-the-less represents the "single eye" of those who wrote it and not necessarily the actual reality of Jesus or any other character depicted within. As I see it, this applies to all of the UB as well as the many books now available to us of a similar nature.

It is just a book nothing more and nothing less. It, in and of itself, isn't Jesus, the Spirit of Truth, or the Creator of All; but perhaps it is a starting point to search and find these spiritual realities within ourselves. But in my opinion, we must not allow the UB, or any other book of a similar nature, to become a crutch which [over time] could actually interfere in a personal relationship with Our True Father.

Many times on TruthBook posters have stated the ever-increasing unfoldment of truth, meaning, and value within themselves and their lives each time they read the UB. It is my assertion that the more this is done the more it becomes a crutch. Using a material object to discern the Living Spirit [in symbolic terms] is much the same as a toddler using furniture to learn how to walk. Yes, it is difficult, but in order that human consciousness and wisdom evolve according to the divine plan; sooner or later we must put down the crutch and walk towards Father on our own.

Both Arcfixer and Michael60 describe in your own words what I mean when I say the UB contains symbolic truth and should not be taken literally. Thanks guys!!!

p.s. I'm still upset with the catholic church for imprisoning Galileo even though they officially appologized not so long ago. Oh well, it happened 400 yrs ago, guess I should get over it, huh?

_________________
If You Embrace the Truth, the Truth Will Embrace You!


Last edited by rhermen on Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:03 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Something need not be factual to be true.

A pile of facts should not be confused with truth.

I usually try and keep my posts as short as I can and still do justice to my ideas. This one is a little long, but germane to our discussion.

To a critical observer, the problems with the science in UB are manifold and obvious. It seems everywhere you look there is a red herring. Could the inclusion of red herrings be a subterfuge?

I will recall a story from my college days at the University of Oklahoma. I was taking a history of science class. As I was in an honors program, all my classes were small and taught by full professors. My history of science professor happened to be the head of the department, Dr. Roller. He was world renowned for his knowledge of his subject and was also known as a brilliant teacher. I found this to be true from the first moment of his class. His lectures were informative, humorous, and even passionate.

One day, Dr. Roller began to talk about Galileo Galilei. He soon came to the story about Galileo dropping cannonballs and such off the Tower of Pisa to prove that gravitational acceleration is purely a function of time, and is unrelated to mass, that is, a feather should fall at the same rate as a stone. The story goes that he dropped a cannonball and a much lighter sphere of the same diameter off the Tower of Pisa. The story contends the two spheres arrived at the ground at the same time, proving Galileo correct.

At this point, Dr. Roller stops and asks if anyone in the class has ever performed a similar experiment. One guy raises his hand. This guy says he has done the experiment, dropping stuff off the top of his house. Dr. Roller is skeptical, but this guy insists he has done the experiment, and that objects of different masses always hit the ground at the same time. At this point, Dr. Roller leaves it and goes on with the lecture.

The next class, Dr. Roller continues with his lecture, nothing unusual. Then, about halfway through class, he turns to this guy, and asks him again about the dropping balls experiment. This guy sticks with his assertion, and even gets a little miffed that it came up again. Dr. Roller drops it, and goes on with the lecture. The next time we meet, the same thing happens. Dr. Roller starts his lecture, then about half way through, he asks this guy about the experiment again. This guy is even more adamant than before. He had, by God, done this experiment, and the balls hit the ground at the same time. Dr. Roller drops it and goes on with the lecture. This happened a couple of more times, and each time, Dr. Roller offered this guy a chance to back out. Each time, this guy was more insistent that his story was true.

So one day, we come to class. There is a note on the door that says, "Meet me at the library, first floor, main staircase. Dr. Roller." Eventually, we all assemble at the bottom of the main staircase in the library. It is a grand spiral staircase, four stories high. Dr. Roller seems to be nowhere around, but at last, we hear his voice, falling down on us from the top of the staircase. He welcomes us, and then descends the stairs. He arrives at the bottom with two spheres in his hands. One is a baseball. The other is a sphere of the same size, but made of cork. He turns to this guy, and asks what he thinks will happen if Dr. Roller drops the balls from the fourth floor. This guy hesitates, and then reasserts that they will hit the ground at the same time. Dr. Roller asks him if there might be at least some tiny difference in the time of arrival, owing to air resistance and whatnot. This guy agrees that there might be a very small discrepancy. At this point, Dr. Roller asks him if he might lie down on the floor, getting his head low enough to detect this potential small discrepancy in speed of fall. This guy agrees, and Dr. Roller starts back up the staircase and this guy lies down on the floor with his cheek pressed against the cold marble.

Dr. Roller reaches the top, and with great ceremony reiterates this guys assertion that the balls of different masses will indeed strike the floor at the same time. Then he counts down, five, four, three, two, one, and he drops both balls. The baseball, not surprisingly drops like a stone. The cork ball, on the other hand, seemed more interested in taking its time. The baseball had struck the floor and bounced halfway back up before the cork ball finally made it to the floor. In a four story race to the floor, the heavier baseball had beaten the lighter cork ball by almost two stories. And here was this guy lying on the floor, looking for a difference of fractions of an inch. For him it was an utter humiliation. He had been proven a liar and a fool in front of everyone. But that, of course, was not the point of the exercise. For the rest of us, it was a stunning lesson in the nature of science as well as the nature of humans. From that moment, each and everyone present would find it difficult to believe on its face anything anyone ever says or anything written or published in any source.

Of course, Galileo never performed this experiment off the Tower of Pisa. Or if he did, the results would be the same as Dr. Rollers. And yet, many high school science books in use today say he did perform this experiment, and the balls hit the ground at the same time. In direct contradiction of the known facts. I was stunned when a few weeks ago, I was watching NOVA on PBS, and the announcer made this false assertion about Galileo and the Tower of Pisa. On NOVA! A science writer on public television backed up by editors and fact checkers was still making the same false assertion that this guy made in my history of science class thirty years ago!

I know this is a long post, but it finally illustrates some pertinent points. First and foremost, authority is not to be trusted. Ultimately, we must verify everything for ourselves. That seems to me to be the crux of the task of a mortal ascender from a rebellious planet. This is the path of an agondonter.

The story also illustrates how a brilliant subterfuge was the most powerful bit of teaching that I have ever encountered. Which brings me back to the topic of the post (finally!). Is the inclusion of red herrings in UB part of some well planned process? I have alluded to this possibility previously on another thread. Are these seeming errors, as Randy suggests, anti-fetish devices? Meant to keep us honest and diligent in our search for truth?

I honestly don't know. The fact is, I don't really care. If I hadn't hurt my knee, I'd be skiing powder today. But instead, I sit here counting angels on the head of a pin and trying to write something you guys will find amusing and maybe even informative. I hope I haven't failed you too badly.

Peace,
Arc


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:10 am +0000
Posts: 345
Type in “scientific method” into the google search engine on the internet and you will get 60 million return hits. Talk about sifting truth from fiction! Can you have a life if there’s that much sifting to be done?

Owning to the “exacting precision” of my search, I realized that I was not going to find what I was looking for on the internet because the first hit was from the University of Rochester and as far as REPRODUCIBILITY being part of the “scientific method” as I learned it back when I was 9 years old, it seems “science” has moved on and this is what they are teaching for mega-buck tuitions:

“There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.”

Oy vey. Reproducibility has been replaced by “context”. And this is more scientific than “anecdotes”?

Well then, I’ll go tell the grapefruit tree that it only reproduces grapefruit each year because of its “context”. Ditto for the sun rising in the east…it’s in the east because I have defined “east” in contrast to “west”. I gave truth its “context”.

But speaking of reproducibility, after seeing the documentary “March of the Penguins”, one can perhaps understand better why the Life Carriers gave up on Urantia with hatching future will creatures in eggs. :razz:

I guess the semi-selfish aspects of embarking on the adventure of reproducing yourself makes breeders vulnerable to confusing self-assertion with self-insertion? :idea: Why else would 95% of the Material Sons be casualties of the Lucifer Rebellion? And even a few Life Carriers stationed on the rebel planets were somewhat influenced by the rebellion of the disloyal princes (page 607). And just how far are the Fathers of Sin going to go to keep Urantia bare-bottomed-stupid about “science”? I am filled with trepidation because every time I ask that “how low will they go” question, the bar starts dropping in free-fall even lower. :shock:

So, yes, the non-“scientific” aspects of the UB are interesting – but I guess only for people who are capable of comprehending other-mindedness.

For instance – Ellanora (imaginary or real) is on my would-like-to-invite-her-to-my-dinner-party list. (page 607). Although, it seems that Ellanora and the Panoptians will be inviting Urantians to their “dinner party” one day. Until then, I’ll be wondering how different Urantia could have been by now if we had had an Ellanora instead of a breeder Eve. And just how SIMPLE is it for mortals to be not impressed with a cosmically insane Planetary Prince? Is it merely by lifting our eyes from our crotches to the sky? Is it “context”? :idea:

Maybe we need a new TV series called “Religion and the City”? :idea:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:08 am +0000
Posts: 2170
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Gentleman, I like this thread! Thanks Froggy!

I don't care to much to argue about who's right or wrong. So I dont' know if any of you would be interested in sharing with me what you might know about several questions I have.

I agree with Arc and Michael60 I've found truth in Novels so even if the UB was a total fabrication it won't chnage the value it has had for me so far. It was science that first drew me to the UB. I was looking and contemplating an electromagnetic perpetual motion device that would produce more energy than it used in the late 70's, figuring that it could help with our furture energy resourse crisis. A friend told me he saw something in the UB that may be related. I had a copy I hadn't read yet and began to investigate. I didn't find what I was looking for, but I did find Part IV. of TUB. Well my friend said there were scientific discoveries in there that hadn't been discovered until after the time of publishing of the book. That interigued me. So I figured I would watch new discoveries and see if they were predicted in TUB.

Now here's where you can help me. True or False. I can't remember all of the instantcies but I remember a couple.

1. TUB spoke of more planets than had been discovered in 1955. So wouldn't the newly know certainty of planet X fall into that catagory?

2.TUB spoke of rings being made of "small particles" or fragments way before Voyager sent back photos of the rings of Saturn being made up of small particles and frgments. Do any of you know of any scientific article predating Urantia that spoke of saturns Rings being made up of small particles?

3.TUB talks about our Solar System which it refers to as MONMATIA begining it's formation about 4.5 billion years ago. Scientist now estimate the age of the Solar System at 4 billion years. But did any scientist speculate on that in 1955 or before?

4. Last year or so a scientist in Hawaii, Scott S. Sheppard 27 a graduate student of the University of Hawaii found 43 new moons around Jupiter and what caught my eye, was the statement
Quote:
"The orbits of Sheppard's Jovian satellites, however, are highly eccentric. Some fly backward, in what is called a retrograde orbit. Many orbit as close as 5 million milesfrom the planet, and at least one swings out as far as 40 million miles away.
Sheppard published his findings in Nature magazine with his professor David Jewitt, I assume Randy, it is reputable, but I don't know for sure. It was very expensive and I didn't buy and never got around to looking it up in the library. But what caught my eye was "Retrograde" I remember that from TUB. And I knew it said they got that motion from being pulled off from the Angona system 4.5 billion years ago. I have never looked for or found any other mention or explanation of the retrograde motion. And I don't know if the concept existed in scientific circles before 1955. Do any of you know or can you find out? Now there's plenty more on those few pages that I don't think will be discovered for years after I'm dead here.

Quote:
P.656 - §5 The five inner and five outer planets soon formed in miniature from the cooling and condensing nucleuses in the less massive and tapering ends of the gigantic gravity bulge which Angona had succeeded in detaching from the sun, while Saturn and Jupiter were formed from the more massive and bulging central portions. The powerful gravity pull of Jupiter and Saturn early captured most of the material stolen from Angona as the retrograde motion of certain of their satellites bears witness.
P.657 - §3 All of the solar system material derived from the sun was originally endowed with a homogeneous direction of orbital swing, and had it not been for the intrusion of these three foreign space bodies, all solar system material would still maintain the same direction of orbital movement. As it was, the impact of the three Angona tributaries injected new and foreign directional forces into the emerging solar system with the resultant appearance of retrograde motion. Retrograde motion in any astronomic system is always accidental and always appears as a result of the collisional impact of foreign space bodies. Such collisions may not always produce retrograde motion, but no retrograde ever appears except in a system containing masses which have diverse origins.

So please don't debunk what I'm saying just because of it's association with other unproven concepts or theories.

I have 4 specific verification requests. Now it looks to me these 4 things were predicted before they were discovered. Can any of you prove or disprove from available scientific evidence when these four things were discovered.
1. number of planets in solar system more than 9.
2. planetary rings made of small particles.
3. when the age of the solar system was estimated at 4 or more billion years old.
4. explanation of Retrograde motion of bodies in space.

Thanks in advance for any help. this is for you froggy :smile: 8) :roll: :shock: :o :wink: O:) :idea:

_________________
Joe - The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: a 'true believer'
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:04 pm +0000
Posts: 568
Life seems to be simpler for 'true believers.' If a person accepts Everything about the UB as valid and true - or some other body of knowledge - the person uses that body as his 'foundational thinking' (world view / existential frame of reference).

There has been enough Big Stuff in the UB that has sold me as to its reliability and validity. For me, I suppose I am a 'true believer.'

(I used to wonder why and how church people, clergy, would pass over subjects of archaeology, dinosaur stuff, etc. so easily. UB covers this area comprehensively)

............In the 'old days,' I had come to believe in:
One God Brotherhood of humanity perhaps all religions are good
gender equality

I discovered the Baha'i Faith teaches:
One God Brotherhood of humanity All religions from same Source
Equality of man and woman Harmony of science and religion Need for a world government etc.

I accepted the Baha'i Faith 20 yrs ago - and became a 'true believer.' I accepted UB 2 yrs ago - and became a 'true believer.' Both Baha'i and UB had/have many times the sense of truth way beyond what I had gathered piecemeal for myself into a personal belief system / worldview.

These 2 Acceptances could be based on some wishful thinking - but I do believe God the Father provides ALL the ANSWERS we are ready for. These 2 bodies of knowledge do it for me..........

Robert Schuyler once remarked something like this (he quoting someone else): "If you know, you don't need faith. if something is provable in the normal way, faith is, in fact, impossible."

Faith is what we have in the absence of knowledge, of proof. e.g. I cannot PROVE momma loved me - but that truth is great and important without provability. With respect to momma loving me - with respect to God Loving me - trying to Prove these things is senseless.

p.s. seems maybe the Thought Adjuster chortles when the lower mind
cries for 'proof' about the simple and eternal truths


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Quote:
Proof! We don't need no stinking proof!.
The Panoptians

Hey, ya'll. There is a lot of good stuff going on in this thread. Too much to answer in one post. I'm going to break this up into bite sized morsels if I can. I'll start with Joe's astronomy queries, taking them one at a time.

1.Number of planets: Sorry, Joe, there's no help here. The International Astronomical Union, the official guys who decide this stuff, are actually considering revoking Pluto's planetary status. Some astronomers believe it is more properly classified as a De Kuiper Belt object. That would leave us with eight planets, rather than nine. There are other trans-uranus objects that some astronomers believe should be classified as planets. There are several of them, and depending on who's counting, there might be as many twelve to fifteen planets. It all boils down to your definition of "planet". Since contemporary astronomers can't agree on how many planets there are, predicting a "new" one simply carries no freight. In this instance, contemporary astronomy certainly doesn't contradict UB. But this "prediction" is practically meaningless, given the fact that astronomers can't even agree on the definition of "planet" let alone how many there are.

Those who have never studied science and its methods up close and personal have no idea what a messy process it it. It often creates clear cut and effective results, but the nitty gritty of getting to those clear results is not simple or clear. It's often more like nerd mud wrestling. Like making sausages, it's not something you'd really want to watch. Scientists are human, too. They're just as goofy as the rest of us. We can't rely on them any more than we can on any "priesthood".

Once again, we're left with our TA and spirit ministries to help us sort it out. But in my experience, this stuff works pretty darn good, so I reckon we're all OK.

Still responding to Joe's queries:

2. THE RINGS OF SATURN: 0ur good friend Galileo first observed the rings of Saturn through his primitive telescope in 1610. To him, the rings appeared as two lobes, like ears, attached to the larger central sphere. He thought there were three distinct bodies in close proximity.

In 1656 Christian Huygens, with a better telescope, determined that the lobes were actually a ring around Saturn made of rock. In 1675, Giovani Dominico Cassini, with an even better telescope, determined that the ring was actually several smaller rings with gaps in between.

Up until the mid eighteen hundreds, the rings were thought to be solid. In about 1851, Professor Pierce, of Harvard, demonstrated that this was not possible. If they were solid, they would be too heavy to remain in orbit. Shortly thereafter, Professor J. Clerk-Maxwell, of Cambridge, published a detailed mathematical analysis and his conclusion that the rings were actually clouds of meteoritic particles. In his words, "a shower of brickbats." A brickbat is a broken piece of brick. You can hold it in your hand. Clerk-Maxwell's conclusion that the rings are made of small particles predates UB by at least eighty years.

Once again, there is nothing here that contradicts UB. But once again, there is nothing "predictive". UB can hardly be given special credit for predicting something that was established nearly a century earlier.

There you go, Joe. Sorry I'm not being much help.

PS: I'm a big fan of Galileo too. But he was known to be arrogant, and when he poked fun at his friend, Pope Urban IV, he went a little too far. Especially since the good Pope was sponsoring the treatise in which he did the fun poking. The Church clamped down on him after this insult. Prior to that, he was allowed to freely enunciate his theory, he just couldn't say it was true.

Sorry, but you asked for it.

3. THE AGE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
UB gives the age of the solar system at about 4.5 billion years. Currently, astronomers estimate its age to be 4.6 billion years. A very good agreement. Our current theory of solar system origin was proposed way back in 1755 by Emmanual Kant. The nebular hypothesis implies hundreds of millions of years for the formation of our present solar system. So, it has been know for at least two hundred years that the solar system is hundreds of millions of years old.

With the introduction of radioactive dating at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was possible to fine tune this estimate. In 1911, Arthur Holmes, using crude radiometric technique, estimated one rocks age at 1.6 billion years. His claims were resisted until 1921, when the British Association for the Advancement of Science came to the rough consensus that radioactive dating was valid, and that the earth was at least several billion years old, meaning the solar system had to be at least that old, too.

Our current figure for the age of the earth, and hence the minimum figure for the age of the solar system, 4.55 billion years, was determined using radiocative dating by C. C. Patterson in 1956, one year after UB was published. UB gets good marks for accuracy on this one. But the prediction was not revolutionary in any sense. It was well within the range of earlier estimates made by other scientists working in the field. In fact, UB critics (not me), claim that UB actually plagiarized these scientists to get their numbers. The UB authors would still have had to know which numbers to "plagiarize", so some predictive possibility remains.

Here, again, as to the facts, UB agrees with modern science, so the issue is "who said it first?" UB was compiled between 1934 and 1955. Exactly the time when radiometric dating was being developed and applied to the question of the age the earth and the solar system. Fairly accurate estimates of these ages would have been available at least a few years prior to 1955. Is it prediction, or plagiarism, or just a good old fashioned dead heat?

Darn'd if I know. I'll let you draw you're own conclusions from here.

Joe: I can't seem to find you a clear winner, but this one ain't too bad.

Peace,
Arc


Top
  
 
PostPosted:  
RETROGRADE ORBITS
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
In the Solar system, most bodies orbit in a similar (prograde) direction to the rotation of the Sun. All planets and most smaller bodies orbit the Sun counterclockwise as seen from a position above the Sun's north pole. The exceptions are mostly comets, which generally have highly disturbed orbits.

Similarly, the larger and closer moons orbit their planets in the same direction as the planets' rotation, and so are also prograde. However, the gas giant planets have large numbers of small "irregular" moons in highly inclined or elliptical orbits, thought to be captured asteroids or Kuiper belt objects (or fragments thereof), and the majority of these are instead retrograde: 48 retrograde to 7 prograde for Jupiter, 18 to 8 for Saturn, and 8 to 1 for Uranus. One of the largest of these is the Saturnian moon Phoebe. Neptune is somewhat different: It seems to have captured its only surviving large moon, the retrograde but otherwise regular Triton, from the Kuiper Belt. The six irregular moons beyond Triton's orbit are evenly divided between prograde and retrograde; some of these may be original Neptunian moons whose orbits were distubed by Triton's capture, rather than being captured bodies themselves.

As you can see, retrograde motion is nothing new or dramatic. It is well documented by modern astronomy. Phoebe, a retrograde moon of Saturn, was discovered in 1899 by William Henry Pickering. I don't know if this is the earliest discovery of a retrograde moon, but this one predates UB by almost 150 years.

Here we go again. Modern astronomy and UB are in agreement. But retrograde motion is nothing new. It is not good evidence that UB has information from a priviledged source.

I'm not an astronomer, and my posts certainly aren't the last word on any of this. I do know how to read and write and Google, and ages ago I was trained to be a scientist. This is probably a dangerous combination, so consider yourself warned.

Joe, I think I found all the wrong answers, but they were the only ones available.
Peace,
Arc


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 158 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  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