Jump to content
Science Forums

Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?


Turtle
 Share

Do you think Urantia Book is a hoax?  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think Urantia Book is a hoax?

    • Yes; completely fictitious
      23
    • No; it is written by "angels"
      8
    • I can't decide
      0
    • Some other option the poll lacks; will expound in thread
      4


Recommended Posts

Saitia said:

And I can't let an idiot rant against religion "pie" (sic) without poking back just as sharply at your obtuse observations.

 

Ahhh, here's my foil. :hihi: You're late. :naughty: It took you over an hour to respond. :eek: Speaking of claims to reading, I think I said early on that I read the book cover to cover as well as rereading much of it; did you read that part of the thread?:shrug:

 

I read that part of the thread. You said the book had 3000 pages and that it took you 3 years of straight through reading. The first claim is false, and I hope for your sake that the claim that it took you three years to read it is false as well. I don't even think it would take a blind person three years to read the Braille edition. You may have said you read the book from cover to cover, but since there is no 3000 page Urantia Book, thus, it logically follows that you did not read it.

 

Did you find that super hard to get tell-all book A History of the Urantia Papers you mentioned? I wouldn't mind taking a shot at that one too.

 

I recently posted the online link to the "History." Here it is again: http://www.freeurantia.org/AHistory.htm

 

Hey, what if I'm Satan myself fullfilling some prophesy? That'd be a gas huh? :evil:

 

The Urantia Book doesn't have Satan prophecies, perhaps you're thinking of the bible. Anyway, I'm sure Satan is pretty intelligent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from the Urantia Book:

 

"Nowhere on the surface of the world will there be found more of the modified remnants of these ancient preocean rocks than in northeastern Canada around Hudson Bay. This extensive granite elevation is composed of stone belonging to the preoceanic ages. These rock layers have been heated, bent, twisted, upcrumpled, and again and again have they passed through these distorting metamorphic experiences."

 

Can anyone confirm if this statement is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from the Urantia Book:

 

"Nowhere on the surface of the world will there be found more of the modified remnants of these ancient preocean rocks than in northeastern Canada around Hudson Bay. This extensive granite elevation is composed of stone belonging to the preoceanic ages. These rock layers have been heated, bent, twisted, upcrumpled, and again and again have they passed through these distorting metamorphic experiences."

 

Can anyone confirm if this statement is true?

 

I cannot, and I'm not sure how it could be verified. It's an interesting quote, however. I know some of the science minded believers in the book have kicked around some of the other such statements but I haven't heard any discussion of that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from the Urantia Book:

 

"Nowhere on the surface of the world will there be found more of the modified remnants of these ancient preocean rocks than in northeastern Canada around Hudson Bay. ...

 

Can anyone confirm if this statement is true?

The geological chronology of the UB's paper 57 is mostly wrong by present day science, not only in a dating that is understated by roughly a factor of two, but in it's assertion that the Earth during the entire hadean eon was without large bodies of liquid surface water. The "preocean" classification of rock used in the quote, therefore, isn't sensible.

 

Nonetheless, as has been well known to geographers for over a century, rocks around the present day Hudson Bay are very old. Latest techniques date the oldest rocks in this area from 3,800,000,000 to 4,250,000,000 years old (their precise age remains controversial, this being the range of uncertainty, not of individual samples). The first rocks to solidify are dated at about 4,400,000,000 years old, while the main formation of the Earth is generally given as about 4,600,000,000 years ago, so regardless of where in this range they fall, these are very old rocks.

 

See the wikipedia articles oldest dated rocks and hadean for more info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from the Urantia Book:

 

"Nowhere on the surface of the world will there be found more of the modified remnants of these ancient preocean rocks than in northeastern Canada around Hudson Bay. This extensive granite elevation is composed of stone belonging to the preoceanic ages. These rock layers have been heated, bent, twisted, upcrumpled, and again and again have they passed through these distorting metamorphic experiences."

 

Can anyone confirm if this statement is true?

 

I found this:

 

Oldest rock on Earth

The Acasta Gneiss in the Canadian Shield in the Northwest Territories, Canada is composed of the Archaean igneous and gneissic cores of ancient mountain chains that have been exposed in a glacial peneplain. Analyses of zircons from a felsic orthogneiss with presumed granitic protolith returned an age of 4.031 ± 0.003 Ga.[2]

 

On September 25, 2008, researchers from McGill University, Carnegie Institution for Science and UQAM announced that a rock formation, the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt, exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec had a Sm-Nd age for extraction from the mantle of 4.28 billion years.[6][7][8][9] However, it is argued that the actual age of formation of this rock, as opposed to the extraction of its magma from the mantle, is likely closer to 3.8 billion years, according to Simon Wilde of the Institute for Geoscience Research in Australia.[10]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks#Earth.27s_oldest_rock_formation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Turtles motion, all we are doing it rehashing the same stuff over and over because no one wants to read the entire thread. The Book Of Urination is nothing more than yet another book of religious BS, it fails over and over in it's assertions about the natural world and the racism it promotes is offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Turtles motion, all we are doing it rehashing the same stuff over and over because no one wants to read the entire thread. The Book Of Urination is nothing more than yet another book of religious BS, it fails over and over in it's assertions about the natural world and the racism it promotes is offensive.

 

As they say, You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. If they close the tread, Goodbye! But I'm staying until they do. Maybe you could just not post here if you can't go on. Anyway, the premise has been answered. "Who could've Hoaxed this?" No one, that's who. It's not a hoax. It's the real deal. And it's too bad that you had to resort to calling The Urantia Book, "The Book of Urination" again. It tells a lot about you. It's also a violation of the rules, which you don't seem to have any respect for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the query has been amply addressed and by people of opposite opinions, so that should be sufficient.

 

It tells a lot about you. It's also a violation of the rules, which you don't seem to have any respect for.
Give a thought to your own behaviour here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...