Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:58 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:45 pm +0000
Posts: 109
Location: Palmdale, California
I have been reading the History of Urantia.

I noticed that the time frames in the UB are way way different than what I am finding via google search.
The age of our local universe is in pre-formation at about the 900 billion year mark! I am thinking that the universe of universes is far greater in age, yet science claims somewhere around 13.77 billion years or so for the age of the universe.

Also, the different evolutionary eras seem to be off as much as 200 million years. For instance the Cambrian era stated in the UB beginning at around 400 million years ago yet modern science has it about 100 million years earlier.

Not only that, but the age of life as google would have us believe is 4.54 billion years ago supposedly. However, the UB states life is only about 500 million years ago roughly.


So, what gives? Does anyone have any idea(s) why science is so far off on their estimates?

As a non scientist I am very ignorant about past vs present science as well as conflicting scientific viewpoints both past and present.

Any information would be helpful and no I have not thoroughly analyzed UBTHENEWS website by Halbert Katzen as that would take some serious time, and I am just looking for some quick answers if anyone has any.


Sincerely,
Paul


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 902
well they're calculating the age of the universe off of the big bang model which the papers don't support...they're estimating the time it took for the cosmic background radiation to cool off from the theoretical hot explosion and/or the time for it to expand to its present size (but the expansion rates are in error and the "size" is limited to however far the newest telescope can detect).

the cambrian age...well originally the beginning of the cambrian age was defined as the first complex life and at the time of the papers writing that was considered to be trilobites. they've since found earlier shelled animals and the still earlier ediacaran biota so they've backed the age up to the end of the avalon explosion.

the papers story of first life is consistent with the current views of the avalon and then cambrian explosions and the few examples of life they think they find from before that time (which are spread out hundreds of millions of years between each other and occur at times when the ability of the earth to support life isnt consistent with current science) amounts mostly to bioslime and stromatolites of questionable origin.

there was a discussion of the age of life on earth with some links to some of the problems with the earliest life they're purporting to find here:

Age of life on Urantia

hope this helps clarify


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3392
Greetings Paul!

First let me suggest that doing the research is worth the time. The UB claims some of its science is problematic due to the limit of providing unearned knowledge but the history presented will stand the test of time. This means, I believe, that the story of creation and the historical record of Urantia given will become, already has become, the principal method of empirical verification of the UB to our world over time.

Many of its claims which contradicted generally accepted scientific theories when the UB was both written and later published have proven correct by later improved science. Already this is true. The conflicts between science and the UB will become affirmations over time I think.

The UB applauds the scientific method. Its best feature is its relentless success at disproving prior theories while approaching greater accuracy over time. One way it does this is improvement in the instruments and methods of observations and measurements. Dating geological and archeological and paleontology evidence is certainly one area that has since quantum leaps of change in results measuring the same evidence for far different results.

For example is the estimated arrival of the native Americans over the land bridge believed for decades to be 8-12 thousand years ago but that time frame has steadily increased by successive improvements in dating to newer estimates of over 80,000 years, growing slowly upward. The problem in dating by decay measures are the assumptions associated which have been proven wrong and then adjusted and adjusted again and again.

Astronomical measurements by the speed of light and the red shift are also becoming problematic and unreliable reference calculations too...as Makalu points out. Remember that science still believes in and pursues the single chain of bio evolution. Another disappointment and confused pursuit.

Exciting times for science and technology in the discovery of history and creationism and physics which should result in the growing confidence for the Revelation I am sure.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:11 am +0000
Posts: 24
'Missing links' would require a longer timespan and I believe this is what makes the dates disagree, since according to the Life Carriers,

58:6.2 (669.3) Although the evolution of vegetable life can be traced into animal life, and though there have been found graduated series of plants and animals which progressively lead up from the most simple to the most complex and advanced organisms, you will not be able to find such connecting links between the great divisions of the animal kingdom nor between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races. These so-called “missing links” will forever remain missing, for the simple reason that they never existed.

58:6.3 (669.4) From era to era radically new species of animal life arise. They do not evolve as the result of the gradual accumulation of small variations; they appear as full-fledged and new orders of life, and they appear suddenly.

The scientists set the dates then set out to prove themselves right.


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

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:45 pm +0000
Posts: 109
Location: Palmdale, California
Thanks to Makalu, Bradly, and wiffinzebe.

that helps a lot!

Paul


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

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