How does one come to believe something?

[Colter]

Does everything have to be verified by the UB, for you to give it credibility?

You made a wrong call about the source of the Great Atractir. But not having read the book you disagree with as well as not being up to speed on the latest science, your premature smarminess left you eating crow.

 

[bhsmte]

You made a wrong call about the source of the Great Atractir. But not having read the book you disagree with as well as not being up to speed on the latest science, your premature smarminess left you eating crow.

What wrong call did I make? Please quote me.

 

[Colter]

When one claims "X is evidence of Y"....one should at least explain the "how" and "why" of the evidence and what it's evidence for. Otherwise, all you've done is create another bare assertion that lacks any evidence.




The Uranus Book is continually updated with new scientific views that weren't in the original version lol. The science in the original version that's since been proven wrong gets replaced with correct science.

It's unfortunate that your space aliens weren't any smarter than the scientists of earth in the day that it was originally written...or you might have an impressive text there. As it stands, you're referring to a widely debunked joke amongst "religious" texts.

In some cases science is catching up to the UB. But again you havnt even read it. That's the "ism" of atheism, you spend more time researching skeptics than reading the material. You have a small closed mind.

 

[bhsmte]

In some cases science is catching up to the UB. But again you havnt even read it. That's the "ism" of atheism, you spend more time researching skeptics than reading the material. You have a small closed mind.

Projection.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In some cases science is catching up to the UB. But again you havnt even read it. That's the "ism" of atheism, you spend more time researching skeptics than reading the material. You have a small closed mind.

I'll bite, give me one example of how science is "catching up to" the original version of the UB. I'll look into it.

I'd also like to point out to anyone reading, Colt hasn't denied that the UB gets revised in order to agree with modern scientific consensus and past scientific claims that it's made, and have since been disproven, get removed from the text.

Yes, Colt, I haven't read it...just like the overwhelming majority of people. While a book with stories about how Jesus is from a different planet and lives on a different planet might be amusing...I can't take them seriously.

 

[bhsmte]

You made a wrong call about the source of the Great Atractir. But not having read the book you disagree with as well as not being up to speed on the latest science, your premature smarminess left you eating crow.

Still waiting for you to quote my wrong call.

 

[Colter]

What wrong call did I make? Please quote me.

Oh, I thought I was replying to Ana. I was on my phone, no glasses. Scratch that.

 

[Colter]

I'll bite, give me one example of how science is "catching up to" the original version of the UB. I'll look into it.

I'd also like to point out to anyone reading, Colt hasn't denied that the UB gets revised in order to agree with modern scientific consensus and past scientific claims that it's made, and have since been disproven, get removed from the text.

Yes, Colt, I haven't read it...just like the overwhelming majority of people. While a book with stories about how Jesus is from a different planet and lives on a different planet might be amusing...I can't take them seriously.

The UB hasn't been revised for science, it's been edited for gramerical mistakes, punctuation and spelling. It was originally set in nickle plates at RL Donelly in Chicogo. You may visit UBthenews.com for a comprehensive list of reports on science catching up to the UB. Search that to your hearts content.

 

[Colter]

It's not proof.



Not really...no.



I would call this outright nonsense...but you got it from your space-Jesus book didn't you? So I guess I would call it marketable nonsense.



If you can show me a consciousness that exists apart from the "material world" as you put it...I'll consider this a possibility. Until then, it sounds ridiculous.

Also, the universe isn't "mind-made" or managed or any of that.



I'm not sure at all what you mean by this...you're saying that your beliefs don't help you understand the world? I think that's a frank and honest evaluation of your beliefs and I'd agree completely.

This is the post of Ana's wherein he claimed the science of a Great Atractor of clusters of Galaxies came from the UB when it came from scientist that had nothing to do with the UB. It just so happens that in 1955 the UB claimed that all mater is gravity responsive to the Paradise center of the universe. That the universe expands and contracts on 1 billion year cycles.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is the post of Ana's wherein he claimed the science of a Great Atractor of clusters of Galaxies came from the UB when it came from scientist that had nothing to do with the UB. It just so happens that in 1955 the UB claimed that all mater is gravity responsive to the Paradise center of the universe. That the universe expands and contracts on 1 billion year cycles.

Lol are you sure you got the right post? I don't recall saying anything remotely close to that....and the post you quoted says nothing of the sort.

 

[Kylie]

If he was a Christian with knowledge of what is written in Scripture, some believe,
he could have known that he will have no memory of you if he makes it to heaven and you don't.
Thus,after his death and resurrection, no sorrow nor grief, not even a thought at all, about or over any punishment or suffering due you.

So you are saying that the only way for my husband to be happy in Heaven is to forget me entirely?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The UB hasn't been revised for science, it's been edited for gramerical mistakes, punctuation and spelling. It was originally set in nickle plates at RL Donelly in Chicogo. You may visit UBthenews.com for a comprehensive list of reports on science catching up to the UB. Search that to your hearts content.

Some of the basic scientific mistakes in the UB...attributed to the scientific beliefs of the 40s-50s....

• The described formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis,[103] which though popular in the early part of the 20th century, was discarded by the 1940s after major flaws were noted.[104] The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.[103]
• According to the book's descriptions, the universe is hundreds of billions of years old and periodically expands and contracts — "respires" — at 2-billion-year intervals. Recent observations suggest that the true age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.[105] The book does not support the big bang theory.[106]
• A fundamental particle called an "ultimaton" is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is not supported by modern particle physics.[107]

There's many more, of course, these are just a few of the more obvious ones pointed out on Wikipedia.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The UB hasn't been revised for science, it's been edited for gramerical mistakes, punctuation and spelling. It was originally set in nickle plates at RL Donelly in Chicogo. You may visit UBthenews.com for a comprehensive list of reports on science catching up to the UB. Search that to your hearts content.

No offense, but I seriously doubt that UBthenews is going to be an impartial website. Had a book from the fifties managed to predict all sorts of future scientific discoveries...it would be news on a lot more places than a UB propaganda website.

 

[Kylie]

It isn't my purpose to provide evidence so that everyone will know the truth.

A discussion thread probably isn't the place if you just want to come in here and state what you believe without actually discussing why you believe it.

The position to change society belongs to whoever can do so. Why think the position to change society must be earned? I think brute force is enough; the king can execute whoever he wants, and he doesn't have to explain anything to anyone.

Might makes right, is that it? The motto of the tyrannical, the dictators. If my daughter is being bullied and beaten up, do I tell her that since the bully has more brute force than they have the right to do it? You want to tell a rape victim this?

About New York, since you admit you've never been to New York, I guess we can say that's true, I'm being charitable. Now, I guess you wouldn't be a primary source maker. However, someone who was there would be able to write a document about it, and that would be a primary source. Was I supposed to understand your example of you writing about New York to be taken as, you were there, or weren't there? I thought it was the former, anyways...

But I could CLAIM I was there, even if I wasn't. And how would you know I wasn't? So you would end up thinking that a bunch of nonsense I wrote down was valid as a primary source. And it would lead you to very wrong conclusions.

I think scripture is convincing for reasons I've already explained. Go read what I already said. As for evidence that scripture is correct, I can think of reasons for why it would be, but I'll be honest, I don't have concrete evidence that makes everyone believe in Jesus. I still believe in Jesus anyways.

Reading your reasons again won't make them any more convincing to me.

Besides, you freely admit that you believe in something without evidence for it.

It seems that you have a problem with the concept of trusting certain peoples' testimonies. I don't think it's that hard to understand, and it's quite simple. Trusting words, it's all there is to it.

I have a problem trusting people when they make extraordinary claims and don't provide sufficient evidence to support those claims.

According to the bible, moral change in a certain area of life isn't enough to get a person out of "jail". God decides in the end whether or not to be merciful. It's because of mercy that I believe, I won't go to hell.

Sounds like God just makes arbitrary decisions. And I'm sure that every believer is convinced that they are going to heaven. I doubt there are many believers you believe that they are going to hell. It's just another advertisement. You buy something (hold the belief) and you get a result (believe that you are going to Heaven). It's not really that different from someone buying skin cream and believing that they are going to get rid of the wrinkles under their eyes

Call me closed minded. I don't recall thinking of what I was doing as a "debate". I thought I was just sharing my so called worthless beliefs. Nothing could really convince me that Jesus did not rise from the dead. I have the utmost faith and confidence in the Risen Lord. That doesn't mean I'm not reasonable though. I just think there's more to accepting beliefs or denying them than evidence.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can claim that there is NOTHING that will change your mind and still say it is reasonable.

Do I have a double standard? Is it a double standard to believe in one thing, but not another? If so, yes, but I don't think saying that changes anything.

It is a double standard to believe an argument applies in one case, but that same argument does not apply in another case.

You claim that you have no evidence that Jesus wasn't real, so you believe in him. You claim that you have no evidence that Harry Potter wasn't real, but you DON'T believe in him.

I could find that which is regarded as evidence outside books about the United States, but how would I know that the evidence found was really trustworthy? I could be skeptical about all evidence, and claim it's possible everything is fabricated.

That's why you cross check. See if there is evidence about it from other sources. I could read a book about New York, and if what I read matches what I see in videos made in New York, newspapers printed in New York, etc, then I can conclude that the book is accurate.

I believe in a God who judges people. The way it seems to me, he doesn't really love everyone the same. I've come to think of God as a grand scientist, who has created specimens that end up being trash, or treasure, depending on factors including freewill. So, things still work out in the end... just not for each individual.

So God plays favorites? Does that mean that if God doesn't love you enough, then you are going to hell, no matter what?

If you want to believe in Aesop's stories, I'm not stopping you. I have my beliefs, I'm confident that I'm right. Do you feel confident that Harry Potter exists?

*Sigh* I fear you missed my point.

I don't know all the answers, but there's a link between Jesus death on the cross, and the sacrifices, which were an archetype.

It's almost like a literary device, isn't it...?

As for what I said about memorization: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2014/02/28/did-jesus-expect-his-teachings-to-be-memorized/

Interesting, but I wouldn't say that is evidence of a cultural tendency towards memory use. It's not much different than when salesmen are trained in how to sell their products.

Not liking what something says? I don't dismiss arguments that way. I dismiss them because they aren't convincing, after reading them, or listening to them. They carry no weight. I'm confident they'll continue to lack substance.

Given that you said earlier that nothing will change your mind about Jesus, I suspect you also dismiss arguments because they go against what you have already concluded is true. That seems to me like dismissing an argument simply because you don't like what it says.

As for my bias; I think with how things are going, it's pretty great. If God exists, and the doctrines I believe in are true, I'm winning Pascal's wager.

And if God exists, but it's a different God, then by believing in the wrong god, you're just making God madder and madder. And if God doesn't exist, then you are losing Pascal's wager by not striving for the truth always.

Lastly, I wan't to reiterate. People don't always believe things because of evidence alone. Perhaps God somehow made me to believe in him; deterministically, or molinistically. My brain chemistry could be off, and that's why I accept the bible's claims but not Harry Potter's. At the end of the day I feel pretty confident about Christ.

Yes, but let's say it was because your brain chemistry was off. You'd still feel confident that your beliefs about God were correct.

So, you can't conclude that you are right just because you are confident you are right.

 

[Kylie]

I was referring to first-hand knowledge, and not a "gut-feeling"...

Encountering God WITHIN you is a first-hand encounter...

No it isn't. If you have no way to test it, you have no way to tell what really causes it.

Let me add it is ONLY a first-hand encounter...

Because:

ONLY GOD can give it...

No. You can also create something yourself that you believe is an encounter with God.

The evidence of its reality is found in the change of the lives that have had it...

If that is the criteria for determining what is real, then the people in Heaven's Gate really did go for a ride on a comet.

So let me address the real issue here: Are you totally discounting first-hand evidence?

No. But you have not presented any. You are only presenting something that you claim is first hand evidence because you can't believe it is anything else.

And what you are insisting upon is SHARED first-hand evidence...

I think you mean TESTABLE. If we can't test it, how do we know it is accurate?

For instance, there is a large body of scientists who have faith in evolution as accounting for the variety of species of life found on earth, and because all these scientists believe in it, we can say that all life forms evolved from some single original life form from a distant and invisible past... As a result, most non-Christian folks believe in evolution... Just as most Christians believe in God as having created all the species...

No, they have evidence, not faith. EVIDENCE.

Do not try to claim that a scientist accepting evolution as real is on the same level as a believer thinking God is real.

What I submit to you is that both beliefs lack any material proof except in secondary features... eg No scientist has ever established a repeatable scientific procedure that can cause any species to evolve into a "higher" one, and neither has any Christian done the same in proving Creation by God... Scientists will point to logical progression of life forms according to, say, complexity, and Creationists will point out these same facts as indicating "intelligent design" inherent in the structures themselves...

You don't actually know much (or anything) about evolution, do you?

The mechanism behind evolution is understood. There's no such thing as a "higher" species. Every claimed example of intelligent design has been shown to be perfectly explainable by evolution.

The arguing goes on ad nauseum without resolution, each side convinced of its rectitude...

And only one side with actual evidence.

Both relying on first hand evidence...

No. One side relying on testable and repeatable evidence from reality, the other side relying on gut instinct and emotional conclusions that are different for each person.

And just as
there is a community of scientific believers in evolution,
so also
is there a community of faith believers in the providence of God...

Funny how there are so many different sects of believers, though, isn't it? Almost like there was only a subjective God, not an objective one.

The witness of each is legion...

And the only conclusion an "objective observer" can draw is that the issues is not resolvable rationally...

Only if you put testable evidence on the same level as untestable feelings.

The history of mankind is over 90% faith oriented...
And it is less than 10% atheistically science based...

First of all, "atheistically science based"? Since when does science claim there is no God? Science makes no mention of God. It doesn't need to. Science deals with testable and repeatable evidence in a systematic investigation of reality. God is not a part of that.

And secondly, argument from popularity is not going to convince me, or anyone else with a degree of rationality.

So that the "social metaphysics", eg the insistence on the social verification that scientific proof entails, argues against science and in favor of some form of supra-natural mysticism across mankind's history...

Science relies on social verification? What in the world do you mean by this? Science relies on evidence. If the evidence can be tested repeatedly and it withstands that testing, then it is accepted as accurate. Simple as that.

Yet first-hand evidence is the basis for all knowledge...
There is no substitute for first hand experience...
It trumps socially concurred evidence in non-material knowledge...
Because these are all also but first hand evidencings...

And yet, you have never provided any argument for God EXCEPT non-material stuff.

If you run to people for your first hand knowledge of God...
You will find neither...
You will only find people...

This does not help your argument. You seem to be claiming that there is no objective God, only a subjective God, which is exactly what we would expect if God was a gut feeling.

 

[Colter]

No offense, but I seriously doubt that UBthenews is going to be an impartial website. Had a book from the fifties managed to predict all sorts of future scientific discoveries...it would be news on a lot more places than a UB propaganda website.

I'm not offended, you seriously doubt a lot that is actually true, that's the ism. I realize this is an ego thing with you and not a sincere quest for truth.

""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.
"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."

With that in mind there are examples of statements made by the UB that (were perhaps hypothesized) but had not yet been accepted by the science community, or were currently out of favor at the time that the UB made such bold statements.



PARTICLE PHYSICS
The Urantia Papers, received in 1934, described a weak force carrier, release of tiny neutral particles (antineutrinos) in radioactive beta decay, release of more tiny neutral particles during gravitational collapse of massive stairs (neutrinos), and the existence of a then unknown strong nuclear force. The existence of the weak force carrier was demonstrated in 1983, the existence of neutrinos was confirmed in 1956, the existence of neutron stars whose formation gives rise to the release of vast quantities of neutrinos was confirmed by X-ray telescope in 1967, and the theory of the strong nuclear force involving quarks and gluons became accepted theory during the late 1970's.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, p. 479; "Two Remarkable Predictions", K.T. Glasziou, 6-0-6 Newsletter, vol 9 (no.3),1988; Brotherhood of Man Library, file GLASZ07.DOC,1988.


CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND LAND ELEVATION
The Urantia Book account of the geological history of our planet includes many cycles of land elevation and submergence with a average periodicity of approximately 25 million years. A possible physical mechanism by which this could occur has recently been described.
REFERENCE: "The Supercontinent Cycle," R.D. Nance et al. Scientific American 259(l) 44-51 (1988)



CONTINENTAL DRIFT

The Urantia Book states unequivocally that all land on earth was joined together in one huge continent that commenced to break up 750 million years ago, and was followed by a long period of continental drifting during which land bridges were repeatedly formed and broken. The story of the movements of the continents and concomitant effects upon developing life is described in considerable detail in the book.

The concept of continental drift was rejected by most geologists and geophysicists until examination of the ocean floor at the mid-Atlantic Ridge during the late 1950's and early 1960's revealed that the Earth's crust is being melted and forced upwards resulting in ocean floor spreading, hence continental drift. However the theory of continental drift did not become generally accepted in North America until the mid 1960's (see H.E. LeGrand ref.).

Until recently, the date of commencement of break up of the single continent was placed at about 200 million years ago. Currently this date has been revised and pushed back to between about 600 and 800 million years ago as stated in The Urantia Book.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 663; K.T. Glasziou, "Continental Drift", 6-0-6 Newsletter, Vol 9 (#4) 1988; Scientific American (1984) 250(2),4 1; Scientific American,(l987), 256(4),84; H.E. Le Grand 1988. "Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories" (Cambridge University Press); Brotherhood of Man Library, 1988.


MOUNTAIN BUILDING
The Urantia Book associates mountain building on the west coast of North and South America with continental drift. Today, nobody doubts that mountain building occurs at the edge of drifting continents, concomitantly with the subduction of the oceanic crust. However virtually nobody believed in continental drift at the time of writing (or publication) of The Urantia Book.
REFERENCE: The Urantia Book, page 689


STABLE ELEMENTS
The Urantia Book tells us that atoms with more than 100 orbital electrons are unstable, and quickly decay. Element 101 (Mendelium) was discovered in the products of nuclear fission in 1952, and was found to have a half-life of about 30 minutes. All elements above 100 have since been found to be highly unstable. There was no adequate theoretical basis to make such a prediction at the time of receipt of the Urantia Papers. (note: the longest lived isotope of Mendelium has a half-life of 1.5 hrs)
REFERENCE: The Urantia Book, page 478

PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES

​

The Urantia Book tells us that Venus has a dense atmosphere and that the atmosphere of Mars is of low density. The Russian Venera 7 space probe measured the atmospheric pressure of Venus in 1970 at about 90 times the Earth's atmosphere, and the U.S. Mariner probe gave the atmosphere of Mars as 1/100 of the Earths' atmosphere. There was no way to predict or to measure atmospheric pressure on these planets before the advent of the space probes.
REFERENCE: The Urantia Book, page 561


MOTIONS OF THE MOON
The Urantia Book tells us that the moon is presently moving away from the Earth. This has been confirmed by highly accurate radar measurements. The rate of movement is about 1 inch per year.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 657; Scientific American 249 (6), 71

TYCHO BRAHE'S NOVA OF 1572
The explosion of a supernova in 1572 was a brilliant spectacle visible in broad daylight, and became known as Tycho Brahe's nova. The Urantia Book states that this nova was due to the explosion of a double star. The first serious theoretical description of novas and supernovas was presented in the early 1950's by Hoyle and associates. This theory is still being modified and expanded. Nova and supernova occur due to the explosion of both single and double stars. The remnant of Tycho Brahe's supernova was rediscovered in 1952 by use of the recently invented radio telescope, but could not be shown to' be due to a double star explosion until it was extensively mapped by the orbiting Einstein X-ray observatory in 1967.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 458; Urantia Brotherhood Bulletin, "Nova of 1572 Explained."



AGE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
The Urantia Book tells us that the events triggering the formation of the solar system occurred 4.5 billion years ago. During the early 1950's, and based on the work of Edwin Hubble, the generally accepted age of the universe was just 2 billion years. Then Baade's work at Mt. Wilson revealed an error in Hubble's methodology effectively doubling the age of the universe, and causing great hilarity in the American press at that time. Most astronomers now put the age of the universe at about 15-18 billion years (this idea may change drastically with the apparent collapse of the Big Bang theory). Radio-isotope dating of meteoric material now puts the age of the solar system at about 4.55 billion years, which is virtually the same age as told by The Urantia Book.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 655. Kaufmann "The Universe"


There are many more here: http://truthbook.com/urantia/science-studies/science-content-of-the-urantia-book

 

[Colter]

Some of the basic scientific mistakes in the UB...attributed to the scientific beliefs of the 40s-50s....

• The described formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis,[103] which though popular in the early part of the 20th century, was discarded by the 1940s after major flaws were noted.[104] The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.[103]
• According to the book's descriptions, the universe is hundreds of billions of years old and periodically expands and contracts — "respires" — at 2-billion-year intervals. Recent observations suggest that the true age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.[105] The book does not support the big bang theory.[106]
• A fundamental particle called an "ultimaton" is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is not supported by modern particle physics.[107]

There's many more, of course, these are just a few of the more obvious ones pointed out on Wikipedia.

All of these examples that you provided are not "facts" they are still theories which are subject to change.

When the UB was first received we knew that it made many bold, unsubstantiated claims and was very specific about those claims. A skeptical mind would naturally wonder why a massive fraud would be so specific, opening itself up to ridicule???? Dates and days for instance, why would a fraudster, who would never even profit from the fraud, giving his meager estate to the UF when he died, be so detailed about dates thousands of years ago????



COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF DATES IN The Urantia Book

In 1572 a former professor from Bologna named Ugo Buoncompagni became Pope Gregory XIII; ten years later the Gregorian calendar was introduced. The Julian calendar, founded 16 centuries earlier by Julius Caesar, was inaccurate and the need for reform was widely recognized. Its principal failure was the discrepancy between the mean length of its year, 365.25 days, and the tropical year, then averaging 365.24232 days. This is nearly eleven minutes and four seconds shorter than the Julian year. This small discrepancy had continued to accumulate until it was no longer a matter of minutes but days. By the time of the Gregorian reform, the error had grown to eleven days. Understandably this was of concern to the Pope. If the calendar had continued unchanged, Easter would eventually have to be celebrated in the summer.

The attempts at reform set off a wide range of debates, both academic and religious. At one point excommunication was threatened against anyone who refused to accept the New calendar. The details about this reform are to be found in the May 1982 issue of "Scientific America," by G. Moyer.

In Part IV of The Urantia Book, there are numerous references in which dates and weekdays are listed. Is there any way to check these dates? Was April 14, A.D. 2 really a Friday as stated?

Using information obtained from "Astronomical Formulae for Calculators" by Jean Meeus, a computer program was written to calculate dates and the co-incidental day of the week. The program takes into account the Gregorian calendar reform. All dates are first converted to Julian day numbers, and the results divided by seven to obtain weekdays from the remainder. A calendar was then generated using this information. Even by computer standards, it is a rather tedious process.

The following dates from The Urantia Book were used to check their correctness:

April 14, A.D. 2 - Friday
April 26, A.D. 2 - Sunday
June 24, A.D. 5 - Wednesday
January 9, A.D. 7 - Sunday
April 17, A.D. 9 - Wednesday
February 23, A.D. 26 - Saturday
March 3, A.D. 26 - Sunday
June 15, A.D. 26 - Tuesday

All of these dates and their corresponding day of the week as cited in The Urantia Book were found to be correct. The odds for obtaining these results from random guesswork are one chance in 5,764,801. [note: there are more than 100 such dates in Part IV of The Urantia Book. An additional 30 have now been checked and all were correct.]

 

[Colter]

EVOLUTION — GRADUAL OR EPISODIC

"The Urantia Papers were received in the mid 1930's when the concept that gradualism is the major mode of evolutionary change had become dogma for the great majority of paleontologists. Despite being against firmly entrenched current opinion, the Urantia Papers made this statement: "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." There are not less than twenty five statements in The Urantia Book that cite the sudden appearance of radically New and different species of plant and animal life. Hence there can be no doubt that the book , while not rejecting gradualism as a means of adaptation, places complete emphasis on sudden and radical change as being a major tool for the achievement of evolutionary advance. There is a qualification to this assertion which states: "The sudden appearance of New species and diversified orders of living organisms is wholly biologic, strictly natural. There is nothing supernatural connected with these genetic mutations."

On the day before his revolutionary book "Origin of Species" was released in 1859, Charles Darwin received a letter from his friend, Thomas Henry Huxley, containing the warning; "You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting 'Natura non facit saitum' so unreservedly." This Latin phrase means that "nature does not take leaps." Huxley felt that natural selection required no postulate about rates of evolution, that it could function at varying, even very rapid, rates. However Darwin portrayed evolution as an orderly process, proceeding at virtually imperceptible rates. He argued that ancestors and their descendants must be connected by infinitely numerous transitional links forming the finest of graduated steps. There is almost no evidence in the geological record to support the concept of gradualism. Darwin admitted the imperfection of the geological record, and the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists even today as the trade secret of paleontology. However a substantial group of scientists are now prepared to believe that Huxley was right, and that the theory of evolution and natural selection does not necessarily require gradual change. Hence it is gradualism, not Darwinism, that is being rejected. An alternative concept to gradualism is that evolution proceeds in two major modes, firstly phyletic transformation by which a population changes suddenly from one state to another, and secondly speciation by which variation is introduced into a new population. This concept was put forward by Eldridge and Gould in 1972, and although at first it received considerable opposition, the view that evolution can proceed by sudden changes is now widely held among paleontologists."

REFERENCES: Eldridge, N., and Gould, S.J. 1972. "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism." in "Models in Paleobiology," ed. T.J.M. Schopf (Freeman, Cooper and Co. San Francisco); The Urantia Book, p.669.


58:6.2 "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."

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not offended, you seriously doubt a lot that is actually true, that's the ism. I realize this is an ego thing with you and not a sincere quest for truth.

""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.
"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."

With that in mind there are examples of statements made by the UB that (were perhaps hypothesized) but had not yet been accepted by the science community, or were currently out of favor at the time that the UB made such bold statements.



PARTICLE PHYSICS
The Urantia Papers, received in 1934, described a weak force carrier, release of tiny neutral particles (antineutrinos) in radioactive beta decay, release of more tiny neutral particles during gravitational collapse of massive stairs (neutrinos), and the existence of a then unknown strong nuclear force. The existence of the weak force carrier was demonstrated in 1983, the existence of neutrinos was confirmed in 1956, the existence of neutron stars whose formation gives rise to the release of vast quantities of neutrinos was confirmed by X-ray telescope in 1967, and the theory of the strong nuclear force involving quarks and gluons became accepted theory during the late 1970's.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, p. 479; "Two Remarkable Predictions", K.T. Glasziou, 6-0-6 Newsletter, vol 9 (no.3),1988; Brotherhood of Man Library, file GLASZ07.DOC,1988.


CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND LAND ELEVATION
The Urantia Book account of the geological history of our planet includes many cycles of land elevation and submergence with a average periodicity of approximately 25 million years. A possible physical mechanism by which this could occur has recently been described.
REFERENCE: "The Supercontinent Cycle," R.D. Nance et al. Scientific American 259(l) 44-51 (1988)



CONTINENTAL DRIFT

The Urantia Book states unequivocally that all land on earth was joined together in one huge continent that commenced to break up 750 million years ago, and was followed by a long period of continental drifting during which land bridges were repeatedly formed and broken. The story of the movements of the continents and concomitant effects upon developing life is described in considerable detail in the book.

The concept of continental drift was rejected by most geologists and geophysicists until examination of the ocean floor at the mid-Atlantic Ridge during the late 1950's and early 1960's revealed that the Earth's crust is being melted and forced upwards resulting in ocean floor spreading, hence continental drift. However the theory of continental drift did not become generally accepted in North America until the mid 1960's (see H.E. LeGrand ref.).

Until recently, the date of commencement of break up of the single continent was placed at about 200 million years ago. Currently this date has been revised and pushed back to between about 600 and 800 million years ago as stated in The Urantia Book.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 663; K.T. Glasziou, "Continental Drift", 6-0-6 Newsletter, Vol 9 (#4) 1988; Scientific American (1984) 250(2),4 1; Scientific American,(l987), 256(4),84; H.E. Le Grand 1988. "Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories" (Cambridge University Press); Brotherhood of Man Library, 1988.


MOUNTAIN BUILDING
The Urantia Book associates mountain building on the west coast of North and South America with continental drift. Today, nobody doubts that mountain building occurs at the edge of drifting continents, concomitantly with the subduction of the oceanic crust. However virtually nobody believed in continental drift at the time of writing (or publication) of The Urantia Book.
REFERENCE: The Urantia Book, page 689


STABLE ELEMENTS
The Urantia Book tells us that atoms with more than 100 orbital electrons are unstable, and quickly decay. Element 101 (Mendelium) was discovered in the products of nuclear fission in 1952, and was found to have a half-life of about 30 minutes. All elements above 100 have since been found to be highly unstable. There was no adequate theoretical basis to make such a prediction at the time of receipt of the Urantia Papers. (note: the longest lived isotope of Mendelium has a half-life of 1.5 hrs)
REFERENCE: The Urantia Book, page 478

PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES

​

The Urantia Book tells us that Venus has a dense atmosphere and that the atmosphere of Mars is of low density. The Russian Venera 7 space probe measured the atmospheric pressure of Venus in 1970 at about 90 times the Earth's atmosphere, and the U.S. Mariner probe gave the atmosphere of Mars as 1/100 of the Earths' atmosphere. There was no way to predict or to measure atmospheric pressure on these planets before the advent of the space probes.
REFERENCE: The Urantia Book, page 561


MOTIONS OF THE MOON
The Urantia Book tells us that the moon is presently moving away from the Earth. This has been confirmed by highly accurate radar measurements. The rate of movement is about 1 inch per year.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 657; Scientific American 249 (6), 71

TYCHO BRAHE'S NOVA OF 1572
The explosion of a supernova in 1572 was a brilliant spectacle visible in broad daylight, and became known as Tycho Brahe's nova. The Urantia Book states that this nova was due to the explosion of a double star. The first serious theoretical description of novas and supernovas was presented in the early 1950's by Hoyle and associates. This theory is still being modified and expanded. Nova and supernova occur due to the explosion of both single and double stars. The remnant of Tycho Brahe's supernova was rediscovered in 1952 by use of the recently invented radio telescope, but could not be shown to' be due to a double star explosion until it was extensively mapped by the orbiting Einstein X-ray observatory in 1967.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 458; Urantia Brotherhood Bulletin, "Nova of 1572 Explained."



AGE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM
The Urantia Book tells us that the events triggering the formation of the solar system occurred 4.5 billion years ago. During the early 1950's, and based on the work of Edwin Hubble, the generally accepted age of the universe was just 2 billion years. Then Baade's work at Mt. Wilson revealed an error in Hubble's methodology effectively doubling the age of the universe, and causing great hilarity in the American press at that time. Most astronomers now put the age of the universe at about 15-18 billion years (this idea may change drastically with the apparent collapse of the Big Bang theory). Radio-isotope dating of meteoric material now puts the age of the solar system at about 4.55 billion years, which is virtually the same age as told by The Urantia Book.
REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 655. Kaufmann "The Universe"


There are many more here: http://truthbook.com/urantia/science-studies/science-content-of-the-urantia-book

Obviously, I'm not going to debunk each of these claims one by one...but I looked up the continental drift example at random and found that your "foundation" is, of course, being dishonest.

The theory of continental drift was introduced way back in 1596 and more fully developed in 1912. That's plenty of time for the charlatans who wrote this nonsense to have heard of it and included it in their book.
This is typical for the UB...the lying about how it presented some scientific discovery first, and then mankind caught on later. In truth, it simply took some scientific theories of its day and included them.

A perfect example of this is how the UB promotes eugenics. Why don't you tell us what it says about eugenics Colt?

While you're at it, tell us what it says about original sin and needing Jesus to redeem the sins of mankind. I'm certain there are some christians here who don't fully understand just how wildly different from christianity the UB is. Who is the archangel Michael according to the UB?

 

[Ana the Ist]

EVOLUTION — GRADUAL OR EPISODIC

"The Urantia Papers were received in the mid 1930's when the concept that gradualism is the major mode of evolutionary change had become dogma for the great majority of paleontologists. Despite being against firmly entrenched current opinion, the Urantia Papers made this statement: "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." There are not less than twenty five statements in The Urantia Book that cite the sudden appearance of radically New and different species of plant and animal life. Hence there can be no doubt that the book , while not rejecting gradualism as a means of adaptation, places complete emphasis on sudden and radical change as being a major tool for the achievement of evolutionary advance. There is a qualification to this assertion which states: "The sudden appearance of New species and diversified orders of living organisms is wholly biologic, strictly natural. There is nothing supernatural connected with these genetic mutations."

On the day before his revolutionary book "Origin of Species" was released in 1859, Charles Darwin received a letter from his friend, Thomas Henry Huxley, containing the warning; "You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting 'Natura non facit saitum' so unreservedly." This Latin phrase means that "nature does not take leaps." Huxley felt that natural selection required no postulate about rates of evolution, that it could function at varying, even very rapid, rates. However Darwin portrayed evolution as an orderly process, proceeding at virtually imperceptible rates. He argued that ancestors and their descendants must be connected by infinitely numerous transitional links forming the finest of graduated steps. There is almost no evidence in the geological record to support the concept of gradualism. Darwin admitted the imperfection of the geological record, and the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists even today as the trade secret of paleontology. However a substantial group of scientists are now prepared to believe that Huxley was right, and that the theory of evolution and natural selection does not necessarily require gradual change. Hence it is gradualism, not Darwinism, that is being rejected. An alternative concept to gradualism is that evolution proceeds in two major modes, firstly phyletic transformation by which a population changes suddenly from one state to another, and secondly speciation by which variation is introduced into a new population. This concept was put forward by Eldridge and Gould in 1972, and although at first it received considerable opposition, the view that evolution can proceed by sudden changes is now widely held among paleontologists."

REFERENCES: Eldridge, N., and Gould, S.J. 1972. "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism." in "Models in Paleobiology," ed. T.J.M. Schopf (Freeman, Cooper and Co. San Francisco); The Urantia Book, p.669.


58:6.2 "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."

Again, all this reflects the knowledge (or lack of it) of the time it was written. We don't even consider "missing links" a thing anymore in biology....every species is a transitional species.

More to the point, if these space aliens who spoke through former 7th day adventist Kellogg were really in possession of superior technology...why didn't they share it? Why not solve the energy crisis or give us the means to feed the entire world? Why spit out useless things about the formation of mountains of continental drift?