The Urantia Book

[McCulloch]

Yes, there is the eye witness account [to Jesus' resurrection] given in the Urantia Book.

Bro Dave has put forward the Book as eyewitness testimony to support the allegation that Jesus was raised from the dead. Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?

[McCulloch]

I am glad to see that one Urantia Book reader agrees with me about the subjective nature of the alleged facts revealed in the Book.

Either perhaps you are not reading my posts, or else you should have said "I am glad to see that [two] Urantia Book reader agrees with me about the subjective nature of the alleged facts revealed in the Book."

You are right.

I am glad to see that at least one Urantia Book reader agrees with me about the subjective nature of the alleged facts revealed in the Book.

[Billurantia]

A 6,000 mile thick crust of Calcium on the Sun? No conflict with modern science. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

This seems to indicate there is plenty of calcium. Perhaps it is the different forms present that presents the problem.

http://www.phim.unibe.ch/~wurz/975886.pdf

I will agree 1955 is provable.

[McCulloch]

A 6,000 mile thick crust of Calcium on the Sun? No conflict with modern science. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

This seems to indicate there is plenty of calcium. Perhaps it is the different forms present that presents the problem.

I will not argue about there being plenty of calcium in the sun. However, the authors of the Urantia Book explicitly make the claim that "there is a calcium layer, a gaseous stone surface, on the sun six thousand miles thick. " By my rough calculation, a calcium layer six thousand miles thick on the surface of the sun would make the sun about 2 per cent calcium. Current estimates put calcium at about 0.00019% of the sun. Somebody is off by more than a few orders of magnitude.

[Rob]

Current estimates put calcium at about 0.00019% of the sun. Somebody is off by more than a few orders of magnitude.

Dear McCullock,

I am not doubting your statement above, but you certainly would prefer that I or anyone else provide citations to back our assertions. How am to benefit from your knowlege, to grow in my own knowlege, unless you cite your sources so that I too, like any good scientist, can examine the information, source, and data, and further this debate for both our edification.

Please do for me a favor, just as I will make every effort to do for you; which is put forth whatever effort it requires to first get the evidence to back my assertions, before I make them. It seems only fair, would you not agree?

I seek to learn from you too my friend, but am unable to do so if you do not provide citations.

To be honest, you have raised a valid and good question, and I want to investigate it carefully, but it is going to take time, as all research does. But you do not help me if you do not provide me citations to contribute to the data we have to consider in evaluting your point. At least Bill has put forth the effort to find a peice of information about the subject, although I have not had the time to evaluate it to make any descision one way or the other as to its relevance on the question you have raised at hand. But I don't see how jumping to conclusions, one way or the other, serves the search for truth. I have no problem with holding tenative positions, but should they not be based upon cited data we can all evaluate together?

[Arie]

TERATORNIS

"Teratornis (meaning "monster bird") was an early condor-like bird. This giant, extinct predator had a wingspan of roughly 16-25 feet (5-7.6 m). This carnivore (meat-eater) dates from the Pleistocene epoch, about 1.8-.01 million years ago. Classification: Class Aves, Order Ciconiformes, Family Teratornithidae (teratornis), Genus Teratornis, species merriami and incredibilis."

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... irds.shtml

Teratornis or ‘monster bird’ was a Pleistocene bird, and this may be the largest bird of all time. With a wingspan of over 23ft, Teratornis fed on carrion. Its remains have been found in the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, California, where the animal was presumably trapped when it came down to feed.

http://www.nhm.org/journey/prehist/bird ... ornis.html

Not to say this was the exact bird... but it was a monster. And it stated 100mph... not 500.

This image of the Sun was taken through a filter that only transmits light with a wavelength of 393.4 nanometers. The image was taken by a telescope at the National Solar Observatory, Sacramento Peak in Sunspot, New Mexico. The blue light is emmited by once ionized Calcium atoms. http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPOP/C ... lcium.html

P461:6, 41:6.2 Calcium is, in fact, the chief element of the matter-permeation of space throughout Orvonton. Our whole superuniverse is sprinkled with minutely pulverized stone. Stone is literally the basic building matter for the planets and spheres of space. The cosmic cloud, the great space blanket, consists for the most part of the modified atoms of calcium. The stone atom is one of the most prevalent and persistent of the elements. It not only endures solar ionization -- splitting -- but persists in an associative identity even after it has been battered by the destructive X rays and shattered by the high solar temperatures. Calcium possesses an individuality and a longevity excelling all of the more common forms of matter.


P462:1, 41:6.3 As your physicists have suspected, these mutilated remnants of solar calcium literally ride the light beams for varied distances, and thus their widespread dissemination throughout space is tremendously facilitated. The sodium atom, under certain modifications, is also capable of light and energy locomotion. The calcium feat is all the more remarkable since this element has almost twice the mass of sodium. Local space-permeation by calcium is due to the fact that it escapes from the solar photosphere, in modified form, by literally riding the outgoing sunbeams. Of all the solar elements, calcium, notwithstanding its comparative bulk -- containing as it does twenty revolving electrons -- is the most successful in escaping from the solar interior to the realms of space. This explains why there is a calcium layer, a gaseous stone surface, on the sun six thousand miles thick; and this despite the fact that nineteen lighter elements, and numerous heavier ones, are underneath.

"The Sun is 1,391,000 kilometers (862,400 miles) in diameter. Earth is 12,742 kilometers (7,900 miles) in diameter."
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/spa ... earth.html


Okay... so now the debate isn't about Calcium on the sun... it's about the quantity.

[McCulloch]

Current estimates put calcium at about 0.00019% of the sun. Somebody is off by more than a few orders of magnitude.

I got this number from Basic Facts About the Sun Part 2 from University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). © 2002 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. All Rights Reserved.

[Rob]

Current estimates put calcium at about 0.00019% of the sun. Somebody is off by more than a few orders of magnitude.

I got this number from Basic Facts About the Sun Part 2 from University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). © 2002 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. All Rights Reserved.

Thanks McCullock. I am going to have to wait until I can make a trip to the University library before I do any real research on this question, so it might be a while, but I will get to it eventually.

All the best.

[Arie]

I was just speaking with an individual from the National Solar Observatory and the impression I got from him is that they really don't know the exact quantities of solar elements. He was given to the idea that most solar elements are homogenous... not in layers. Up to you to decide.

BTW... why are you so against the science in the UB McCulloch? Why are you only looking for flaws to pick? Do you ascribe to the same approach with every literary piece? Even though I do not have an answer to this objection... I'm sure you could come up with a hundred more right? My brother is the same way... exactly. The argumentation just goes in circles. Sadly... this is the way with most people... you either instantly recognize the brilliance of the work... or you throw it out the window under the category of hoaxes.

Perhaps I should give you the suggestion of reading about the life of Jesus and maybe you can gain some spiritual insight if you choose. Your soul is more important that your science.

[Sandycane]

edit

[Bro Dave]

Greetings All!

It's been a loooong time since I've been here but, I see Woody and Dave (and a few new faces) are still waving the UB flag.

For some mysterious reason, I received an e-mail notification about this thread. so, I logged back in and read all 10 pages...well, I skimmed over some parts.

Mr. McCulloch! What a superb job you are doing of moderating this debate.

I don't really have anything to add to this thread but, I will look around and see if something grabs me...I'm sure I'll find something.

Just wanted to say, 'Hi' and and 'Thanks' for the invitation.

Sandy

Hi Sandy, always a pleasure to have you join in. I wish KKK,(no relations to the guys in white sheets! ) would also stop by. He and the others would be in friendly company here. I suspect, however that the site name would bias him away. Too bad. This is definately one of the most open, best moderated forums around.

Later,

Bro Dave