Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[REASON]

I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to be grasping the concept of relational rotation. The moon does not rotate in relation to the earth. Yes, it still rotates in relation to the sun, but the UB quote is talking about the moon's rotation in relation to the earth - earth being the "larger body".

 

Relative to the Earth, the Moon completes one rotation in each revolution around the Earth. This is what allows the same hemisphere to always be facing the Earth.

 

If the Moon did not rotate on it's axis at all, the opposite hemisphere would be facing the Earth halfway through a revolution.

 

Think about it.

[Caligastia]

Cal,

that's why I use a Mac.

:hihi:

 

 

Because they aren't computers, or because people don't write programs for them?:hihi:

[Caligastia]

Relative to the Earth, the Moon completes one rotation in each revolution around the Earth. This is what allows the same hemisphere to always be facing the Earth.

 

If the Moon did not rotate on it's axis at all, the opposite hemisphere would be facing the Earth halfway through a revolution.

 

Think about it.

 

I understand what you're saying, but that's because the earth is rotating. The earth rotates in relation to the moon, but not vice-versa. If we view the earth and moon as a whole, yes, the moon rotates, but we are speaking soley of the moon's relationship to the earth. By applying your definition of rotation, we can say that every celestial body rotates in some way.

[REASON]

I understand what you're saying, but that's because the earth is rotating. The earth rotates in relation to the moon, but not vice-versa. If we view the earth and moon as a whole, yes, the moon rotates, but we are speaking soley of the moon's relationship to the earth. By applying your definition of rotation, we can say that every celestial body rotates in some way.

 

What we are talking about is Axial Rotation (or "Axial Revolution" per the UP). The Moon rotates once on it's axis for each revolution around the Earth. The rate at which the Earth rotates is beside the point here.

 

The Earth rotates 365.25 times for each revolution around the Sun. The Moon rotates once for each revolution around the Earth.

 

Turtle's point is that the statement in the UP that we have been debating, where it says...

 

The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction. Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of

planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases

, leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, which always turns the same face toward Urantia. (emphasis is mine)

 

...is a fallacy because when you have "one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body," axial rotation has not actually ceased. It is rotating at a rate of one rotation per revolution.

 

Another confusing aspect of this statement is that in astronomy, the term revolution refers to a complete orbit while rotation refers to spinning on an axis. The terminology in the UP statement above is misapplied, but it is not difficult to understand what is being conveyed.

[Turtle]

I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to be grasping the concept of relational rotation. The moon does not rotate in relation to the earth. Yes, it still rotates in relation to the sun, but the UB quote is talking about the moon's rotation in relation to the earth - earth being the "larger body".

I understand exactly the circumstance.

 

Again, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. It is not an error or a mistake, merely an imperfection. If you write a computer program that is inefficient in some small way in that it takes slightly longer to make a calculation than it should, that is an imperfection - not an error. An error would be if the program calculated incorrectly. In the same way, the sentence contains the correct information, but does not convey it with perfect efficiency. The UB is not perfect, and does not claim to be.

 

Yes, it claims it is absolute truth; that's what a revelation is when speaking theologically. The mountain I'm making is from a lot of these 'molehills', and it is a mountain of evidence of the falsity of the Urantia's claims.

 

Turtle, From what I understand, the current International Convention theme is Service

 

"Purpose of Conference

 

The purpose of this conference is to bring the idea and ideals of service to the forefront of the minds of those readers who are associated with the Fifth Epochal Revelation. We hope to raise the awareness that service is a key component of Jesus’ gospel of love for man and God and that we can all serve in some capacity as we go about living our spiritual lives. Our goal then is to entice readers with the thrilling experience of loving service by helping each conference attendee explore the possibilities of living a more service filled life."

 

I'll be getting to the Jesus stuff soon enough at the Complications & Contradictions thread. :hihi: ............:hihi:

[freeztar]

Relative to the Earth, the Moon completes one rotation in each revolution around the Earth. This is what allows the same hemisphere to always be facing the Earth.

 

If the Moon did not rotate on it's axis at all, the opposite hemisphere would be facing the Earth halfway through a revolution.

 

Think about it.

 

Very well said Reason. I'd just like to add that from the vantage point of Earth, it appears (to someone not trained in basic Astronomy) that the moon does not rotate at all. This is very convincing evidence that it was humans, and not "all knowing celestial beings", that wrote the UB. Omniscient beings would never make such an error.

[modest]

Yes, it claims it is absolute truth; that's what a revelation is when speaking theologically. The mountain I'm making is from a lot of these 'molehills', and it is a mountain of evidence of the falsity of the Urantia's claims.

 

I agree Turtle. Although I'm new to this subject it immediately became obvious that someone with faith in this book will dissemble either the book or modern science by any means to keep that faith. The response to these two quotes demonstrates:

 

..leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon...

 

The book is dissembled to fit modern science by claiming it means something other than it says.

 

1,000,000,000 years ago... cooling of the earth's crust sufficiently to cause the formation of the first ocean.

 

Science is dissembled to fit the book claiming geology, radioactive decay rates, the big bang, are all wrong.

 

If the faithful are claiming the book made accurate predictions about science then it's ironic how much modern science is ignored in an effort to make this book seem divine.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Majeston, so far you have attacked my character, blown me off with quotes from the Urantia book masquerading as science facts and failed to live up to your own promises. So if and when you want to start stating the facts from the Urantia book that can be verified by modern science that the people who hoaxed couldn't have known anytime would be good now. I think the number mentioned was six, any chance you can deliver? Or do plan to continue to regale us with more unverifiable sillyness from the "book"

[Majeston]

 

Originally Posted by Turtle View Post

Yes, it claims it is absolute truth; that's what a revelation is when speaking theologically. The mountain I'm making is from a lot of these 'molehills', and it is a mountain of evidence of the falsity of the Urantia's claims.

 

 

Actually, Turtle it says exactly the opposite of what you have said and it is very clear about it. the highlights are mine.....

 

 

101:4 THE LIMITATIONS OF REVELATION

 

 

101:4.1 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.

 

101:4.2 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.

 

101:4.3 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.

 

101:4.4 In the last analysis, religion is to be judged by its fruits, according to the manner and the extent to which it exhibits its own inherent and divine excellence.

 

101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:

 

1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.

2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.

3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.

4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.

5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.

 

 

 

Obviously this particular case is not one where "1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error." is appropriate.

 

:hihi:

[Moontanman]

Actually, Turtle it says exactly the opposite of what you have said and it is very clear about it. the highlights are mine.....

 

 

101:4 THE LIMITATIONS OF REVELATION

 

 

101:4.1 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.

 

101:4.2 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.

 

101:4.3 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.

 

101:4.4 In the last analysis, religion is to be judged by its fruits, according to the manner and the extent to which it exhibits its own inherent and divine excellence.

 

101:4.5 Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:

 

1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.

2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.

3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.

4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.

5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.

 

 

 

Obviously this particular case is not one where "1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error." is appropriate.

 

:hihi:

 

So what you are saying is that the hoax of the Urantia book is no better than any other hoax supposedly perpetrated by humans claiming to be divinely inspired to fool and gain a sense of false superiority over others?

[REASON]

THE LIMITATIONS OF REVELATION? :hihi:

 

This shall henceforth be known as:

 

THE COSMOLOGICAL QUALIFICATION :hihi:

 

(An open admission by the human authors of the UP that the information they are presenting relative to cosmology is likely to be refuted at some point in the future as our understanding of cosmology advances. They were right because that's exactly what we are doing here.)

[Moontanman]

THE LIMITATIONS OF REVELATION? :lol:

 

This shall henceforth be known as:

 

THE COSMOLOGICAL QUALIFICATION :hihi:

 

(An open admission by the human authors of the UP that the information they are presenting relative to cosmology is likely to be refuted at some point in the future as our understanding of cosmology advances. They were right because that's exactly what we are doing here.)

 

Of course that should have no impact at all on the non cosmological ravings of the urantia book? yeah right

[Majeston]

Moontanman,

 

The attitude you have displayed towards me and also the statements you have made coming into this discussion about the material are not conducive to further exchanges between us. They can only cause one of us or both of us aggravation or distress. I certainly am not here for those reasons. I'm sure if you were more familiar with the material it would lend itself to more fruitful discussion. We are all perfectly aware that the scientific statements in the Urantia material are controversial with mainstream science.

 

I have already supplied you with 2 very good examples in my post #167 to which you have not dealt with in the least detail.

 

I think it best that we have no further discussions together if they lead to the kind of personal attacks that have already been exhibited.

[modest]

Majeston,

 

Can you please post the appropriate quote from the Urantia book describing Rodina as is described in post 167?

 

Thank you,

 

~modest

[Majeston]

Sure Modest,

 

This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually appear in the scientific literature until many decades later. This unusual source is The Urantia Book."......."The comments concerning [[Rodinia]]’s breakup and its influence on animal evolution are found in part III, “The History of Urantia”"......."The critical section 8 of Paper 57, titled “Crustal Stabilization, The Age of Earthquakes, The World Ocean and the First Continent,” is “presented by a Life Carrier, a member of the original Urantia Corps [who visited our planet hundreds of millions of years ago] and now a resident observer.”<ref>http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p057.htm</ref>; The following Paper 58, “Life Establishment on Urantia,”<ref>http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p058.htm</ref> is attributed to “a member of the Urantia Life Carrier Corps now resident on the planet.”

 

Clearly we are not dealing here with an orthodox scientific treatise. Nevertheless, the anonymous members of the Urantia Corps hit on

some remarkable scientific revelations in the mid-1930s. They embraced continental drift at a time when it was decidedly out of vogue in the scientific community. They recognized the presence of a global supercontinent ([[Rodinia]]) and superocean ([[Mirovia]]), in existence on earth before [[Pangea]]."

[[Mark McMenamin]] continues.

 

 

 

Mcmenamin refers to Urantia section 3 papers 57 and 58

 

The Origin of Urantia; The Urantia Book: Paper 57

 

Life Establishment on Urantia; The Urantia Book: Paper 58

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

The attitude you have displayed towards me and also the statements you have made coming into this discussion about the material are not conducive to further exchanges between us. They can only cause one of us or both of us aggravation or distress. I certainly am not here for those reasons. I'm sure if you were more familiar with the material it would lend itself to more fruitful discussion. We are all perfectly aware that the scientific statements in the Urantia material are controversial with mainstream science.

 

I have already supplied you with 2 very good examples in my post #167 to which you have not dealt with in the least detail.

 

I think it best that we have no further discussions together if they lead to the kind of personal attacks that have already been exhibited.

 

My attitude was never toward you specifically it was toward your denial of the idea of confirming the book of urantia with a source other than the book of urantia. Since you obviously cannot tell the six things from the book that are thought to be true now but were unknown to science before the book was written like you freely said you could I will take exception to your idea that continental drift was unknown until 1930, it was first proposed in 1596 that the continents seemed to fit together and that there might at one time have been part of a larger body. A serious theory was first proposed in 1912 by Alfred Wegener, after a mechanism for the energy needed to move the continents was found, he consolidated his theory in the 1915 book "The Origin Of the Continents and Oceans" so your contention that the theory of plate tectonics was proposed after the book was written is easily falsified. Now you can either continue with the personal attacks on me or answer my questions, your choice but I am not going away for you or anyone else.

[modest]

Sure Modest,

 

This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually appear in the scientific literature until many decades later.

 

Continential drift was described as early as the 20's. See Alfred Wegener.

 

EDIT:

Looks like it was 1912 for continental drift and

1915 for Pangea

 

some remarkable scientific revelations in the mid-1930s. They embraced continental drift at a time when it was decidedly out of vogue in the scientific community.

As far as I know, 30 > 20. And when a religious claim postdates a scientific claim - well, you just can't say it's a religious claim can you? No, you cannot. Alfred Wegener both described Pangea and continental drift. Unless that happened after Urantia was published - your best claim so far is hollow.

 

This is why I'm asking if Urantia distinguishes between Pangea and Rodina. Can you quote that?

 

~modest