OK, I guess you asked for it so here it is. Calabrese's approach of multiplying unrelated and arbitrary probabilities on a self-selected list of claims is so invalid it looks dishonest when it is called science.
Kind of a charged opening statement on an unbiased objective scientific presentation, don’t you think Byofrcs? Or is this the openly admitted jaded slanted view? Let’s take a look at some of your statements:
“unrelated and arbitrary probabilities� - not exactly. These are
not “arbitrary� but systematically stated.
Not “unrelated�, they are ALL related to one source. And
not “probabilities� but clearly stated positions as fact predating their future scientific discovery.
Furthermore rather than
“a self-selected list of claims� as Calabrese says,
“These predictions have not been cherry-picked while other misses ignored. They have been chosen because they have been subsequently established by human science.�
And finally in regard to your statement referring to these predictions and their later scientific confirmations as,
“so invalid it looks dishonest when it is called science.�,
WE SHALL SEE.
Byofrcs you then go on about
the time discrepancy between a reference Calabrese used and gave a link to,
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html Calabrese’s reference [Bar98]which also contained this link:
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/fred.html Linked from Calabrese’s reference to a BIO on Reines and his work. And the reference that you found and gave no link to,
“The neutrino. Frederick Reines, Clyde L. Cowan (Los Alamos) , Sep 1956 that was published in Nature 178:446-449,1956� ,
that is dated 3 years prior to Calabrese’s reference’s date.
By the way a link that I found that I believe gives a good overview to this subject of
“continued� neutrino discovery, that others on this site might enjoy is this one:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9512/9512420v1.pdf
You further go on to state that:
“Given that the work on finding the Neutrino (results interesting in 1953) was taking place contemporary to the Urantia construction and publication in 1955 the exact date is very important.�
If the exact date of these things is that important why didn’t you state up front that in the VERY FIRST paragraph of Calabrese’s presentation he states: “Although the Urantia book was first published in 1955,
already by 1942 it was “fixed� and by 1946 the final versions of the 1st edition plates were in the vault of the printer RR Donnelley and Sons of Chicago, ready to produce 10,000 copies.[Mu100]�
Is it because if you stated that, it would show that the Urantia Book’s prediction predated your “revised� initial scientific discovery of the neutrino in 1956 by TEN YEARS? And further it (TUB’s prediction) predated the discovery of the neutrino’s mass in 1998
by over 50 years!.
You use this quote from Calabrese’s paper to point out the same thing he did, that Pauli
postulated about the neutrino in 1931 and beyond.
"While W. Pauli predicted neutrinos in 1931 and E. Fermi incorporated them into his 1934 theory of atomic decay, they were not actually observed until 1959. [Bar98]..."
BUT what you FAIL to acknowledge, IS that The Urantia Book didn’t only predict the particles, it
“boldly affirms their existence as “certain small uncharged particles� and their role.� Boldly means going against ACCEPTED Scientific Theory like the example of the neutrino having mass Calabrese gave which YOU had such a problem with:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762175.html
“These findings run counter to the standard model of particle physics—the basic theory about the structure of matter—which holds that these electrically neutral, weakly interacting particles have no mass. The discovery means that existing theoretical models of matter must now be revised to include neutrinos with mass.�
If there are those who are willing to investigate, let them see what you’ve left out BYOFRCS. The Urantia book doesn’t only talk about the particle in terms of it’s date of discovery BUT it further describes it’s characteristics and related particles that ARE STILL BEING DISCOVERED TODAY!
Look at these TUB quotes from Calabrese’s paper and compare them to the following link or any other scientific paper on the subject of equal or greater quality.
“The Urantia Book boldly affirms their existence as “certain small uncharged particles� and their role. “The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places.� “
“The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron " energy carrier, " which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certain small uncharged particles.�
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9512/9512420v1.pdf
So after we do
a more objective and documented review of your claims it becomes clear you aren’t trying to present a FAIR scientific review of Calabrese’s work.
It appears you may want to dupe people into a slanted one sided view supporting your position. (Or maybe you just overlooked the obvious) So your ending stands exposed for the jaded expressions they are, and can be simply and succinctly addressed
Why didn't you comment on this obvious error?
Didn’t know there was an error.
What are you hiding?
Nothing. I’ve shed more light on the subject and exposed your slanted position.
I think you'll understand now why Atheists just don't trust what we are told on faith but must investigate it. This has nothing to do with faith.
In this case there's no faith involved. It’s all science, reason and logic which anyone can plainly see.
Please don't get upset if we find flaws in your understanding because that is how we change our understanding.
Don’t worry about me, I HOPE YOU DON’T GET UPSET with the flaws I’ve exposed in yours!
My gut feel though is that you'll still have faith in this Urantia nonsense.
Well let’s put it this way. Like most atheists I know, I don’t need to have faith in it. I can rely on the science that proves it is what it is.
Thank You Byofrcs, for finally giving me something I could respond to
logically, scientifically and rationally. I look forward to more discussion of this scientific proof on that basis.
Good Will to you and all on this site. 
