Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
473 replies to this topic

#460 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 09:58 AM

turtle, ya know i love ya but we have to be civil and not call people trolls and their text the book of urination.It is not befitting of such great minds as yours and moontanmans;)


As soon as maj starts to act respectable I'll give him some, all he does is repeat the same claims over and over as though repetition will make them true, he does his best to misrepresent and obfuscate the issues. I think I'm being much more respectful to him than he is to us..

#461 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 10:00 AM

Ridiculing a text that someone ascribes to, only causes strife. The debate should be kept civil, with use of supporting evidence and without personal conjecture.


Why does he get to use deceit, misrepresentation and obfuscation to make his points instead of evidence?

#462 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 10:03 AM

Ridiculing a text that someone ascribes to, only causes strife. The debate should be kept civil, with use of supporting evidence and without personal conjecture.


What personal conjecture?

#463 pamela

pamela

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2490 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 10:14 AM

What personal conjecture?


that was a nice way of not pointing a finger at any one in particular for their not so nice way of treating majeston and that is all i will say.If you need further clarification then please message me.I do not want this thread to remain off topic.

#464 pamela

pamela

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2490 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 10:16 AM

Why does he get to use deceit, misrepresentation and obfuscation to make his points instead of evidence?


personal conjecture

#465 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 10:39 AM

personal conjecture


Oh no, that is the truth, it's his way of arguing, do I need to point out all the times he does these things? Just go back to his last post, it is full of misrepresentation and obfuscation.

#466 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 11:10 AM

...I read both the Book of urination's account and wiki's account and they do not even come close to matching.


Ridiculing a text that someone ascribes to, only causes strife. The debate should be kept civil, with use of supporting evidence and without personal conjecture.


I really don't see the need to respect a text. The book is reprehensible. After reading it in some depth I myself said:

this book is a morally corrupt bunch of eugenics trash that finds no excuse in the time period it was written. It's inexcusable and intolerable and utterly shameful that people are supporting it.



Moontanman is correct that binary stars do not form as is related in the text.

Majeston, do you have any scientific source agreeing with this account of binary star formation?

~modest

#467 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 09:01 PM

[QUOTE=modest
Majeston, do you have any scientific source agreeing with this account of binary star formation?


Nope,

just several well respected PhD's with degrees and expertise in Physics and Astronomy and other related fields. This might be a new fact that science simply hasn't discovered yet. We might have to give them time.

The Urantia papers speak for themselves. The very nature of revelation carries inherently within the unusual quality that it reveals facts formerly unknown. This appears to be one such case. Perhaps you know something I don't.

#468 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 09:11 PM

Moontanman is correct that binary stars do not form as is related in the text.

Majeston, do you have any scientific source agreeing with this account of binary star formation?

Nope,

just several well respected PhD's with degrees and expertise in Physics and Astronomy and other related fields.


Please quote for us several well-respected PhDs with degrees in Physics or Astronomy who claim that stars which are too massive split equatorially forming binaries.

Thank you.

~modest

#469 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 09:13 PM

[QUOTE=REASON
The real problem in my estimation, Maj, is that there are too many people who allow themselves to become so easily captivated by mystical thinking and find themselves losing sight of reality.
-----

i agree

#470 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 09:19 PM

Please quote for us several well-respected PhDs with degrees in Physics or Astronomy who claim that stars which are too massive split equatorially forming binaries.

Thank you.

~modest



Well, I already did that in the Tycho post by the authors who wrote it. The others I do not have permission to use their names on this group at this time. I'm sure you can understand why. I certainly don't want to break any rules.

#471 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 09:44 PM

type Ia supernova[/wiki]. The most likely cause of this kind of supernova – the single-degenerate model, so called because only one of the stars involved, the white dwarf, contains much degenerate matter – is matter being stripped from the normal star companion of a white dwarf, resulting in unbinding of the white dwarf (what could accurately be called an “explosion”) from very high power fusion reactions surrounding it, but not the unbinding of its companion. This is the reason why astronomers such as those mentioned in Menedez’s article search for nearby normal stars with motion consistent of having been blown away from the vicinity of the supernova, which according the article, Tycho G is believed to be.

A less likely model is the double-degenerate, which involves two white dwarfs. However, in this model, on of the stars is ripped apart to supply the infalling matter fused by the other. Although both stars are unbound in this process, an observer describing it would not call it a “double explosion”, because the first start is torn apart over a long period (about 1000 years) before the second is unbound in the brief (about 1 day) powerful supernova event.

In this day of readily available information, you should not hazard such guesses, Majestron. A simple check of a popular source such as the wikipedia article “double star”, would allow you to know that an unambiguous description of a double star appeared no later than 1651, and possible as early as 1616. Well before the 20th century, double stars were well known to professional and armature stargazers. The Burnham Double Star Catalogue, published in 1906, lists 13665 pairs of double stars.

Worse than depriving yourself of easily available information, by not researching your guesses, Majestron, you risk giving readers bad information. This it one of the main reasons hypography’s first rule is

In general, back up your claims by using links or references






ok sorry Craig, my bad, I've only been here like a few days after a long lapse and I really didn't think you were taking this so seriously due to the nature of the comments being spewed and besides that we really are dealing with a topic that carries a very low level of respect and is in the category of Books-Movies and Games.





Paper 41 of this online copy of Urantia book states:

The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions in Orvonton was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached Urantia in A.D. 1572. This conflagration was so intense that the explosion was clearly visible in broad daylight.

Unless the Urantia Book and the “Urantia account” are different things, I don’t see how one can claim that “the Urantia account doesn't state that 2 stars exploded”.



It says what it says, I didn't write the revelation. I can think of at least 3 possibilities that someone could interpret that phrase and they are all different. I'm sure you can as well.

Thanks for your comments. I hope I haven't missed anything or pissed anyone off.

#472 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 09:48 PM

Please quote for us several well-respected PhDs with degrees in Physics or Astronomy who claim that stars which are too massive split equatorially forming binaries.

Thank you.

~modest


Their names are on the articles I posted.

#473 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 08 October 2009 - 12:55 PM

Are these the guys who you are talking about Majeston?

Chris Halvorson, PhD, Halbert Katzen, JD, Phil Calabrese, PhD

Again you only show your ability to misrepresent and obfuscate the issue. These guys are followers of the book of urantia, they are not a reasonable neutral representation of science. They have the same misguided agenda you do, proving the book of urantia and proselytizing the religion of the book of urantia. Majeston, can you possibly be any more disingenuous? This would be like a creationist quoting a creation scientist to prove the veracity of the bible. Majeston your continuing dishonesty does not further your cause, it only makes you look more and more dishonest and dissembling.

#474 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 08 October 2009 - 06:52 PM

Apparently useful conversation of the thread's title has come to an end. Thread closed.
  • Turtle likes this