Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:10 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Creation vs Evolution?
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:43 pm +0000
Posts: 126
I am really interested in the Urantia Book but I have a question:

I understand that the UB teaches evolution, but I don't see how.
The Bible teaches creationism, how can the UB teach both?

Also, where does the new 'Ardi' fit into all this? Were Adam and Eve primitive monkeys?

Thanks,


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
Azacar,

Welcome to this UB forum. I’m sure everyone here will be glad to have you.

First, let me introduce myself. My name is Ysmael and I am a student of the UB. I have been reading the book for two years now. I have read the whole book once and just started reading it again. Like you, I asked those kind of questions myself before I found the UB and even followed the raging debate on creationism vs evolution in many internet forums. Being a Bible believer, I was on the creationists side. When I found and read the UB, I came to realize these debates were really unnecessary. Those people debating were just missing some information to see the bigger picture that God’s creation in time and space was and is being done by progressive evolution. But please don’t take my word for it. The UB answers your questions better. You have found it. You just need to continue reading the book if you have already started it. And please feel free to shoot your questions anytime while you are reading and I’m sure everyone here will be glad to help you. But in my experience, I found out that it is okay to defer some questions that may crop up because they are mostly answered in subsequent papers while reading. Again, welcome and have a nice reading adventure.


Ysmael


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:43 pm +0000
Posts: 126
Thanks for the warm welcome!

I have a copy of the UB on my iPod Touch and I am in the process of Reading it now.
I still have questions, to be perfectly honest...I can't find the answers anywhere. I'm probably missing them. Anyway...

Thanks for everything!

PS: Your wrong about one thing; I didn't find the Urantia Book, the Urantia Book found me!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
If you can accept the thoughts of a skeptic, I can try to shed some light on the matter. I'm not a Bible believer, nor even a UB believer in any very robust sense, but I do find the UB's ideas about evolution intriguing.

I think the UB is more compatible with "Intelligent Design" than Creationism. A lot of people don't understand the difference, or even think there is one, but here's a stab at it:

Creationism is opposed to evolution. Evolution implies the common ancestry of all species. Evolution is the idea that species arose from other species. This means that, for any two organisms in the world today, of any species whatever, if you go back far enough, they have common ancestors. Creationism denies this, claiming instead that species, or possibly groups of species were specially created.

Intelligent Design is compatible with evolution. That is, the ID believer is not committed to denying the common ancestry of all species. Indeed, Michael Behe, the man who started the Intelligent Design phenomenon, believes in the common ancestry of all species. The ID theorist, however, does not believe that you can get evolution by means of random mutations and natural selection alone. The ID theorist argues that the evolutionary process had to be engineered, and that there is in fact observable evidence of that.

I'm not going into the arguments for and against these positions. I'm just clarifying what the positions are.

The UB says that "all planetary life" was implanted on Urantia 550,000,000 years ago in three marine locations. The same life forms were implanted at all three locations. These life forms were, in fact, formulated on this planet, to evolve under conditions here. After that, life was allowed to evolve. This is an Intelligent Design scenario. Since there were three implantations, it's not strictly true that all organisms today have common ancestors, but that's a mere technicality.

I hope that helps.

Ubizmo

_________________
Todd


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

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:40 pm +0000
Posts: 2565
Hello 8)
Azacar
& ubizmo , & guests welcome .

You will find many topical studies
of interest on the Truthbook Homepage .
check it out ... at ... http://www.truthbook.com/

Here are a few good links on evolution .
I'm sure there are other members that can explain and answer your questions much better than i can . and maybe provide other
links to study also .

Really its best to just read the UB Papers
from the beginning, the Forword on ...
as , it can get confusing if you take a paper out of
content, order etc , because each paper will give you a greater understanding of the next one
in regards to unique names , events , etcetera .
Although i admit that my very 1st reading
was in a random order , i just couldnt help but
to peek , ... like a little kid around Christmass time .

Anyhow i hope these links will help you .

http://www.truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=6

http://www.truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=318

http://www.truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=1312

Faith son
Coop
Image


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
Ubizmo,

Welcome too to this forum. I did not realized you were new here.

In my understanding of the debate of how we came about, creationists are basing all their arguments from their literal interpretation of the creation story in the Bible. The evolutionists on the other hand are basing their arguments on mountains of physical evidence. The ID proponents tries to bridge the two by accepting evolution but arguing that there is an Intelligent Designer who started it all and continued to guide its evolution. The UB takes all three, combined and weaved them perfectly together supplying some missing information to show a clear picture of what really happened. So, you are right, that the ID is more compatible with the UB because it portrays a near similarity. The big issue with evolutionists is how to solve the origin of life itself. They have a theory called Abiogenesis – a theory that says, life originated from non life, an accidental coming together of all the chemical ingredients necessary to form the basis of life, and it could have been ignited by a strike of lightning or a meteorite that fell to earth. In a way, that is in line with what the UB is saying but they can not accept that there was any design in it at all. The lightning strike could have been the “spark of life” imparted by the Universe Mother Spirit to the chemical ingredients already assembled by the Life Carriers which were all of origin here on earth.

Azacar,

You are right, the UB found you. “The teacher will come when the student is ready.” It found me too. If I were you I would continue reading the book before saying prematurely that you can not find the answer to your questions. I have a copy of the UB too in my Ipod Touch and it does not seem to be a big book but keep in mind the book is big. It took me almost a year to read the whole book.


Ysmael


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:43 pm +0000
Posts: 126
Ok lol!

Thanks for all the great answers! I will keep reading!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
Interestingly, even Francis Crick, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, argued that the abiogenesis problem could not be solved. That is, he did not believe that life could have originated spontaneously on earth, given the conditions that we believe existed. Consequently, he favored a "directed panspermia" theory, according to which life was implanted here. That is, of course, exactly what the UB says happened. Crick is seldom classified as an ID proponent, but the way I see it, he was definitely in that camp.

Orthodox Darwinians tend to downplay this. They certainly don't want to give the ID movement any credibility by admitting that a Nobel laureate had ID leanings. Moreover, they don't like directed panspermia, since it doesn't give an ultimate explanation of the origin of life. It simply says that life was brought here from somewhere else. It says nothing of how life arose somewhere else.

It's not all good news for the UB, however. The UB says that the date of life implantation was only 550,000,000 years ago. The scientific evidence, however, indicates that life is much older than this--well over 3 billion years. So unless there is a large and systematic dating error, the UB is just wrong about this.

Ubizmo

_________________
Todd


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

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 4:47 pm +0000
Posts: 1394
Location: San Antonio
Welcome hope you enjoy the journey you have begun.

As to your question you will find in the U.B. that it is not so much a either this concept or this concept ..more over it is about seeing how our science has figured out any things that are true about the evolution of life on this planet, but they will never find the truth as to how it started because according to the U.B. no life on any planet whether intelligent or just creature will never be unless through Gods design a specific number of thing are done to set the stage and than be implemented to begin the whole process. ie... water may form, air may form, but life will not unless God plants into the environment a "life seed" my word. This seed takes advantage of the elements on a planet and begins the evolutionary process.

Read on and you will see what i am talking about

Stay True To The Journey


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:43 pm +0000
Posts: 126
Thanks!

I will mate, thanks for all the help guys!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:09 pm +0000
Posts: 1817
Ubizmo mentioned... The scientific evidence, however, indicates that life is much older than this--well over 3 billion years. So unless there is a large and systematic dating error, the UB is just wrong about this.

The discussion about the date discrepancies between what is generally accepted by Science and what is disclosed by The Urantia Book has been discussed before, and yes, there is a large and systematic dating error -- that's why these specific dates are provided as revelatory facts... because science, on its own, cannot determine those dates.

You can read the detailed analysis of why the date discrepancies exist and why what appears on the surface to be inaccurate dates are given in TUB in a study by Chris Halvorson; it's linked to from our site to the Fellowship's site at
http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/ ... stlife.pdf

Science operates from a position of provable facts. The existence of God and of the spirit overcontrol of the material universe cannot be proven scientifically and is therefore discounted by science, as it should be -- philosophy, not science, provides the connection between the findings of science and the facts of spirit.

If you learn anything from a study of fifth epochal revelation you will learn that matter is conditioned by, manipulated by, controlled by forces that science can't recognize -- such information is beyond the realms of scientific inquiry. Therefore, when we're ready to know such things, revelation can help to fill in those gaps in knowledge. It's easy enough to form the opinion that, well, the facts of TUB don't match current scientific theory therefore TUB is wrong, obviously. Or, one can acknowledge the true revelatory nature of TUB, conform their thoughts and opinions to it's teaching, and wonder at why these specific dates are provided when obviously, they don't match current scientific theory and then perhaps try to reconcile the one with the other, as Chris has done with his study.

Basically the study says that science accepts the hypothesis that radioactive materials decay in a linear manner, that the decay of radioactive materials is purely a material and mechanical function of matter and that it can therefore be used to accurately determine dates. Scientifically, that makes sense; there's no evidence to force a conclusion otherwise.

TUB describes in great detail how matter is controlled by force organizers, beings with the purpose of controlling the material functions of the cosmos. They instigate the birth of galaxies and star clusters, they stabilize systems as the life they contain approaches light and life, and they're fully functional in the material domains between those two extremes. They control the forces of the cosmos, the effects being altered levels of cosmic energies, altered rates of radioactive decay. Their influence corrals, contains, modifies, the forces that surround wherever life is developing to produce an environment more conducive to those evolving life forms. The rates of radioactive decay have not been linear, they've been turned down over time as the life forms on the planet evolve from hardy, simple life forms, to more delicate and complex ones.

The purpose of the cosmos is to develop intelligent life, not to generate matter. Matter is intelligently controlled to stimulate the development of life. It's not a big clock set in motion and left to run on its own. It's a dynamic and living enterprise with the value of your well being being paramount. That's not a scientifically provable point of view.

Larry


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
lwatkins wrote:
Ubizmo mentioned... The scientific evidence, however, indicates that life is much older than this--well over 3 billion years. So unless there is a large and systematic dating error, the UB is just wrong about this.

The discussion about the date discrepancies between what is generally accepted by Science and what is disclosed by The Urantia Book has been discussed before, and yes, there is a large and systematic dating error -- that's why these specific dates are provided as revelatory facts... because science, on its own, cannot determine those dates.

You can read the detailed analysis of why the date discrepancies exist and why what appears on the surface to be inaccurate dates are given in TUB in a study by Chris Halvorson; it's linked to from our site to the Fellowship's site at
http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/ ... stlife.pdf


Thank you! I'll study that analysis. I don't think it had been written when I last looked at the UB.

Ubizmo

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:00 pm +0000
Posts: 707
Location: Savannah GA
Hey Azacar:
The Urantia book does teach creationism, just not in the way you may have heard it. See, instead of just man being created, LIFE was created here. The authors state quite specifically that they brought nothing to this planet which was not already here. The utilized the stuff of the planet along with some unrevealed spirit machinations and “Viola”, Life!

It is the spirit part, not the physical protoplasm part which sets life apart from any other thing on this world.

So if you want to look at it in a certain way, life was created here. The same life which evolved over the last billion or so years until it became you and me.
Al


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:43 pm +0000
Posts: 126
Thanks!

I still don't get one thing:

okay, LIFE was created here, and we evolved from there. But how does modern evolutionary theories fit into all this?

For example, the newly discovered ARDI. The theory is that man and monkey are decendents from this "Ardipithicus" creature, rather that us evolving from monkeys.
So if humans were not the first thing on this planet then how does the UB teach creation? Like, were Adam and Eve a whole bunch of Ardis? Did they evolve into modern humans?

See what my query is?

Thanks,


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
Azacar,

I can understand your excitement and you want to get your answers right away. But you got to have patience. If you just continue reading the book, I can assure you, you will get your answer. It is better that you discover it yourself than somebody feeding you the answer.


Ysmael


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group