100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
Absonite
From: s...@tel1.tte.vtt.fi (Stefan Tallqvist)
Subj: Re: Paper 42 (100 octaves)
for those interested in the scientific use of the octave
"wave energy spectrum", I compiled the following table.
The frequency is fixed so, that octave No. 46, the visible
part of sunlight, is correct. Octave 46 starts at octave 45.
I have also included the energy in eV, because this quantity
is frequently used for the high energy part of the spectrum.
The octave spectrum from The Urantia Book page 474,
calculated by Stefan Tallqvist 18.12.1995
Octave No. Frequency (Hz) Wavelength (m) Energy (eV)
0.0000000e+000 1.1000000e+001 2.7253860e+007 4.5492362e-014
1.0000000e+000 2.2000000e+001 1.3626930e+007 9.0984723e-014
2.0000000e+000 4.4000000e+001 6.8134650e+006 1.8196945e-013
3.0000000e+000 8.8000000e+001 3.4067325e+006 3.6393889e-013
4.0000000e+000 1.7600000e+002 1.7033662e+006 7.2787779e-013
5.0000000e+000 3.5200000e+002 8.5168312e+005 1.4557556e-012
6.0000000e+000 7.0400000e+002 4.2584156e+005 2.9115111e-012
7.0000000e+000 1.4080000e+003 2.1292078e+005 5.8230223e-012
8.0000000e+000 2.8160000e+003 1.0646039e+005 1.1646045e-011
9.0000000e+000 5.6320000e+003 5.3230195e+004 2.3292089e-011
1.0000000e+001 1.1264000e+004 2.6615097e+004 4.6584178e-011
1.1000000e+001 2.2528000e+004 1.3307549e+004 9.3168357e-011
1.2000000e+001 4.5056000e+004 6.6537744e+003 1.8633671e-010
1.3000000e+001 9.0112000e+004 3.3268872e+003 3.7267343e-010
1.4000000e+001 1.8022400e+005 1.6634436e+003 7.4534685e-010
1.5000000e+001 3.6044800e+005 8.3172180e+002 1.4906937e-009
1.6000000e+001 7.2089600e+005 4.1586090e+002 2.9813874e-009
1.7000000e+001 1.4417920e+006 2.0793045e+002 5.9627748e-009
1.8000000e+001 2.8835840e+006 1.0396522e+002 1.1925550e-008
1.9000000e+001 5.7671680e+006 5.1982612e+001 2.3851099e-008
2.0000000e+001 1.1534336e+007 2.5991306e+001 4.7702199e-008
2.1000000e+001 2.3068672e+007 1.2995653e+001 9.5404397e-008
2.2000000e+001 4.6137344e+007 6.4978265e+000 1.9080879e-007
2.3000000e+001 9.2274688e+007 3.2489133e+000 3.8161759e-007
2.4000000e+001 1.8454938e+008 1.6244566e+000 7.6323518e-007
2.5000000e+001 3.6909875e+008 8.1222832e-001 1.5264704e-006
2.6000000e+001 7.3819750e+008 4.0611416e-001 3.0529407e-006
2.7000000e+001 1.4763950e+009 2.0305708e-001 6.1058814e-006
2.8000000e+001 2.9527900e+009 1.0152854e-001 1.2211763e-005
2.9000000e+001 5.9055800e+009 5.0764270e-002 2.4423526e-005
3.0000000e+001 1.1811160e+010 2.5382135e-002 4.8847051e-005
3.1000000e+001 2.3622320e+010 1.2691067e-002 9.7694103e-005
3.2000000e+001 4.7244640e+010 6.3455337e-003 1.9538821e-004
3.3000000e+001 9.4489281e+010 3.1727669e-003 3.9077641e-004
3.4000000e+001 1.8897856e+011 1.5863834e-003 7.8155282e-004
3.5000000e+001 3.7795712e+011 7.9319172e-004 1.5631056e-003
3.6000000e+001 7.5591424e+011 3.9659586e-004 3.1262113e-003
3.7000000e+001 1.5118285e+012 1.9829793e-004 6.2524226e-003
3.8000000e+001 3.0236570e+012 9.9148964e-005 1.2504845e-002
3.9000000e+001 6.0473140e+012 4.9574482e-005 2.5009690e-002
4.0000000e+001 1.2094628e+013 2.4787241e-005 5.0019381e-002
4.1000000e+001 2.4189256e+013 1.2393621e-005 1.0003876e-001
4.2000000e+001 4.8378512e+013 6.1968103e-006 2.0007752e-001
4.3000000e+001 9.6757023e+013 3.0984051e-006 4.0015504e-001
4.4000000e+001 1.9351405e+014 1.5492026e-006 8.0031009e-001
4.5000000e+001 3.8702809e+014 7.7460128e-007 1.6006202e+000
4.6000000e+001 7.7405619e+014 3.8730064e-007 3.2012404e+000
4.7000000e+001 1.5481124e+015 1.9365032e-007 6.4024807e+000
4.8000000e+001 3.0962247e+015 9.6825161e-008 1.2804961e+001
4.9000000e+001 6.1924495e+015 4.8412580e-008 2.5609923e+001
5.0000000e+001 1.2384899e+016 2.4206290e-008 5.1219846e+001
5.1000000e+001 2.4769798e+016 1.2103145e-008 1.0243969e+002
5.2000000e+001 4.9539596e+016 6.0515725e-009 2.0487938e+002
5.3000000e+001 9.9079192e+016 3.0257863e-009 4.0975877e+002
5.4000000e+001 1.9815838e+017 1.5128931e-009 8.1951753e+002
5.5000000e+001 3.9631677e+017 7.5644657e-010 1.6390351e+003
5.6000000e+001 7.9263353e+017 3.7822328e-010 3.2780701e+003
5.7000000e+001 1.5852671e+018 1.8911164e-010 6.5561403e+003
5.8000000e+001 3.1705341e+018 9.4555821e-011 1.3112281e+004
5.9000000e+001 6.3410683e+018 4.7277910e-011 2.6224561e+004
6.0000000e+001 1.2682137e+019 2.3638955e-011 5.2449122e+004
6.1000000e+001 2.5364273e+019 1.1819478e-011 1.0489824e+005
6.2000000e+001 5.0728546e+019 5.9097388e-012 2.0979649e+005
6.3000000e+001 1.0145709e+020 2.9548694e-012 4.1959298e+005
6.4000000e+001 2.0291418e+020 1.4774347e-012 8.3918595e+005
6.5000000e+001 4.0582837e+020 7.3871735e-013 1.6783719e+006
6.6000000e+001 8.1165674e+020 3.6935868e-013 3.3567438e+006
6.7000000e+001 1.6233135e+021 1.8467934e-013 6.7134876e+006
6.8000000e+001 3.2466270e+021 9.2339669e-014 1.3426975e+007
6.9000000e+001 6.4932539e+021 4.6169834e-014 2.6853950e+007
7.0000000e+001 1.2986508e+022 2.3084917e-014 5.3707901e+007
7.1000000e+001 2.5973016e+022 1.1542459e-014 1.0741580e+008
7.2000000e+001 5.1946031e+022 5.7712293e-015 2.1483160e+008
7.3000000e+001 1.0389206e+023 2.8856147e-015 4.2966321e+008
7.4000000e+001 2.0778413e+023 1.4428073e-015 8.5932642e+008
7.5000000e+001 4.1556825e+023 7.2140366e-016 1.7186528e+009
7.6000000e+001 8.3113650e+023 3.6070183e-016 3.4373057e+009
7.7000000e+001 1.6622730e+024 1.8035092e-016 6.8746113e+009
7.8000000e+001 3.3245460e+024 9.0175458e-017 1.3749223e+010
7.9000000e+001 6.6490920e+024 4.5087729e-017 2.7498445e+010
8.0000000e+001 1.3298184e+025 2.2543864e-017 5.4996891e+010
8.1000000e+001 2.6596368e+025 1.1271932e-017 1.0999378e+011
8.2000000e+001 5.3192736e+025 5.6359661e-018 2.1998756e+011
8.3000000e+001 1.0638547e+026 2.8179831e-018 4.3997512e+011
8.4000000e+001 2.1277094e+026 1.4089915e-018 8.7995025e+011
8.5000000e+001 4.2554189e+026 7.0449576e-019 1.7599005e+012
8.6000000e+001 8.5108378e+026 3.5224788e-019 3.5198010e+012
8.7000000e+001 1.7021676e+027 1.7612394e-019 7.0396020e+012
8.8000000e+001 3.4043351e+027 8.8061971e-020 1.4079204e+013
8.9000000e+001 6.8086702e+027 4.4030985e-020 2.8158408e+013
9.0000000e+001 1.3617340e+028 2.2015493e-020 5.6316816e+013
9.1000000e+001 2.7234681e+028 1.1007746e-020 1.1263363e+014
9.2000000e+001 5.4469362e+028 5.5038732e-021 2.2526726e+014
9.3000000e+001 1.0893872e+029 2.7519366e-021 4.5053453e+014
9.4000000e+001 2.1787745e+029 1.3759683e-021 9.0106906e+014
9.5000000e+001 4.3575489e+029 6.8798414e-022 1.8021381e+015
9.6000000e+001 8.7150979e+029 3.4399207e-022 3.6042762e+015
9.7000000e+001 1.7430196e+030 1.7199604e-022 7.2085524e+015
9.8000000e+001 3.4860392e+030 8.5998018e-023 1.4417105e+016
9.9000000e+001 6.9720783e+030 4.2999009e-023 2.8834210e+016
1.0000000e+002 1.3944157e+031 2.1499505e-023 5.7668420e+016
Regards
Stefan Tallqvist
---
the wavelength of 1e-18 meters is 0.000 000 001 nanometers, and it is
the shortest and most energetic quanta, from the universe, observed
by satellites!
To find the corresponding frequency you can use my improved
octave spectrum:
The wave energy spectrum mentioned in the UBook (p.474) of our
galaxy group (Orvonton) has been discussed. Essentially I agree
with what Fred Beckner calculated earlier. To have a better picture
of what frequencies each octave represents, I compiled the following
table. The upper frequency in each octave number "n" is calculated
from the formula:
frequency = 2(exponent n) * 11
The resulting octave spectrum:
Octave Frequency (Hz) Wavelength (meter) Ray type
1 11 ... 22 (E+0) 2.73 ... 1.36(E+7) min. energy
.
17 720 ... 1440 (E+3) 416 ... 208 (E+0) Radio (1930)
.
45 1.9 ... 3.9 (E+14) 1.6 ... 0.8 (E-6) Infrared
46 3.9 ... 7.7 (E+14) 0.8 ... 0.4 (E-6) Visible
47 7.7 ...15.5 (E+14) 0.4 ... 0.2 (E-6) Ultraviolet
.
56 4 ... 8 (E+17) 7.5 ... 3.8 (E-10) X-rays
.
59 3.2 ... 6.3 (E+18) 9.5 ... 4.7 (E-11) Gamma
.
64 1 ... 2 (E+20) 3 ... 1.5 (E-12) Electron anihil.
.
78 1.7 ... 3.3 (E+24) 1.8 ... 0.9 (E-16) Outer-space
.
84 1.0 ... 2.1 (E+26) 2.8 ... 1.4 (E-18) Ultimatonic
.
100 7 ... 14 (E+30) 4.3 ... 2.15 (E-23) Infraultimatonic
If frequencies lower than about 10 Hz appear, it would probably be
more appropriate to call such variations "variable fields" than wave
energy. Wave energy is something that proceeds through space so that
the energy of the wave alternates between electric and magnetic field
energy. In a very low frequency the electric and the magnetic field
energies might not be clearly separated. This might be a reason not
to call such variable fields "wave energy" ?
Greetings
Stefan Tallqvist
s...@tel1.tte.vtt.fi
Thomas Paine
A spammer, a troll, and an idiot all in one.
Take your garbage to a newsgroup that gives a damn.
David Johnston
Brent Howatt
: Date: Thursday, July 24, 1997 7:35:31 PM
: From: s...@tel1.tte.vtt.fi (Stefan Tallqvist)
: Subj: Re: Paper 42 (100 octaves)
: for those interested in the scientific use of the octave
: "wave energy spectrum", I compiled the following table.
: The octave spectrum from The Urantia Book page 474,
: calculated by Stefan Tallqvist 18.12.1995
However, the explanations of Octarine energy in Terry Pratchett's Discworld
books make much more sense.
--
H. Brent Howatt, Dir. of Ins. Svcs. | The first days are the hardest days,
Humboldt County Office of Education | Don't you worry any more.
Eureka, California | When life looks like Easy Street,
Behind the Redwood Curtain | There is danger at your door.
============================================================================
hho...@humboldt1.com PGP public key by keyserver or e-mail
bho...@humboldt.k12.ca.us http://www.humboldt.k12.ca.us
Absonite
>From: Brent Howatt <bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com>
>Date: Wed, Oct 21, 1998 1:46 PM
>Message-id: <70l75i$3em$3...@supernews.com>
Brent,
May I suggest that you speak with your colleague about your views. I'm sure
you can have a very rewarding conversation about Stefan's views. I haven't
read your book recco but I will keep an eye out for it.
Robert W. (Bob) Hunt is a professor of mathematics at Humboldt State
University with research interests in ordinary differential equations,
calculus of variations, control theory, and dynamical systems. Professor
Hunt currently teaches calculus, ordinary differential equations,
partial differential equations, and linear algebra. Other interests of
Bob Hunt's are philosopy and religion (the Urantia Book, A Course in
Miracles), particle and quantum physics, Bob Dylan, the Grateful Dead,
reading, and outdoor activities (gardening, backpacking, camping).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and Space
by Bob Hunt, Ph.D.
http://www.humboldt.edu/~rwh2/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sverker Johansson
> for those interested in the scientific use of the octave
> "wave energy spectrum", I compiled the following table.
Why bother? Any physics minor could do it in three minutes
with a spreadsheet, and probably wouldn't do the mistake of
formatting integer octave numbers as floating-point..
> The frequency is fixed so, that octave No. 46, the visible
> part of sunlight, is correct. Octave 46 starts at octave 45.
> I have also included the energy in eV, because this quantity
> is frequently used for the high energy part of the spectrum.
>
> The octave spectrum from The Urantia Book page 474,
> calculated by Stefan Tallqvist 18.12.1995
>
> Octave No. Frequency (Hz) Wavelength (m) Energy (eV)
>
[snip bulk of table]
> 8.4000000e+001 2.1277094e+026 1.4089915e-018 8.7995025e+011
> 1.0000000e+002 1.3944157e+031 2.1499505e-023 5.7668420e+016
>
> Regards
>
> Stefan Tallqvist
> ---
>
> the wavelength of 1e-18 meters is 0.000 000 001 nanometers, and it is
> the shortest and most energetic quanta, from the universe, observed
> by satellites!
Was true, or close enough, when the ub was published, providing yet
more evidence for its earthly provenance.
Isn't true today. We've observed quanta up to beyond octave 110.
>
[snip]
> The resulting octave spectrum:
>
> Octave Frequency (Hz) Wavelength (meter) Ray type
>
> 1 11 ... 22 (E+0) 2.73 ... 1.36(E+7) min. energy
> .
> 17 720 ... 1440 (E+3) 416 ... 208 (E+0) Radio (1930)
> .
> 45 1.9 ... 3.9 (E+14) 1.6 ... 0.8 (E-6) Infrared
> 46 3.9 ... 7.7 (E+14) 0.8 ... 0.4 (E-6) Visible
> 47 7.7 ...15.5 (E+14) 0.4 ... 0.2 (E-6) Ultraviolet
> .
> 56 4 ... 8 (E+17) 7.5 ... 3.8 (E-10) X-rays
> .
> 59 3.2 ... 6.3 (E+18) 9.5 ... 4.7 (E-11) Gamma
...and from here it's gammas all the way down, according to
common usage, rather than your fantasy names.
> 64 1 ... 2 (E+20) 3 ... 1.5 (E-12) Electron anihil.
e+e- -> 2gamma
> 78 1.7 ... 3.3 (E+24) 1.8 ... 0.9 (E-16) Outer-space
> .
> 84 1.0 ... 2.1 (E+26) 2.8 ... 1.4 (E-18) Ultimatonic
> .
> 100 7 ... 14 (E+30) 4.3 ... 2.15 (E-23) Infraultimatonic
>
> If frequencies lower than about 10 Hz appear, it would probably be
> more appropriate to call such variations "variable fields" than wave
> energy.
Arbitrary.
> Wave energy is something that proceeds through space so that
> the energy of the wave alternates between electric and magnetic field
> energy. In a very low frequency the electric and the magnetic field
> energies might not be clearly separated. This might be a reason not
> to call such variable fields "wave energy" ?
Bullshit. E-m radiation functions quite nicely at arbitrary frequencies.
--
Best regards, A.afarensis
Sverker Johansson A.creationistus
HLK, Physics H.habilis
Jonkoping College H.erectus
l...@hlk.hj.delete.se H.sapiens
(with apologies to Lucy...)
Shooty
<bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com> wrote:
Absonite <abso...@aol.comNoBull> wrote:
: Date: Thursday, July 24, 1997 7:35:31 PM
: From: s...@tel1.tte.vtt.fi (Stefan Tallqvist)
: Subj: Re: Paper 42 (100 octaves)
: for those interested in the scientific use of the octave
: "wave energy spectrum", I compiled the following table.
[snip]
: The octave spectrum from The Urantia Book page 474,
: calculated by Stefan Tallqvist 18.12.1995
However, the explanations of Octarine energy in Terry Pratchett's Discworld
books make much more sense.
Octarine uisn't the energy itself. It's the 8th colour of the spectrum. As
it is a magic colour it can only be seen by Wizards and Cats.
Shooty
Brent Howatt
: In article <70l75i$3em$3...@supernews.com>, Brent Howatt
: <bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com> wrote:
: However, the explanations of Octarine energy in Terry Pratchett's Discworld
: books make much more sense.
: Octarine uisn't the energy itself. It's the 8th colour of the spectrum. As
: it is a magic colour it can only be seen by Wizards and Cats.
Quite right. I just finished _Jingo_, but the denizens of the Unseen
University on come into this one at the edges, so I had forgotten the
important details. I do feel that Pratchett's version of reality makes more
Shooty
<bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com> wrote:
Shooty <an...@mrsystems.co.uk> wrote:
: In article <70l75i$3em$3...@supernews.com>, Brent Howatt
: <bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com> wrote:
: However, the explanations of Octarine energy in Terry Pratchett's Discworld
: books make much more sense.
: Octarine uisn't the energy itself. It's the 8th colour of the spectrum. As
: it is a magic colour it can only be seen by Wizards and Cats.
Quite right. I just finished _Jingo_, but the denizens of the Unseen
University on come into this one at the edges, so I had forgotten the
important details. I do feel that Pratchett's version of reality makes more
sense.
In that case you need to be on alt.fan.pratchett
Speak to the great man himself (well have a virtual speak to him)
Shooty
Brent Howatt
: In article <70nk8m$q1f$2...@supernews.com>, Brent Howatt
: <bho...@telnet.humboldt1.com> wrote:
Thanks for the tip. I didn't know about that NG. This is exactly what my
life needs right now...another newsgroup full of sickos with an extremely
warped sense of humor :-)
Ken Cox
> > If frequencies lower than about 10 Hz appear, it would probably be
> > more appropriate to call such variations "variable fields" than wave
> > energy.
But utterly necessary for the Urantia book to be correct, so obviously
the term must be redefined. Of course as you point out The Book is
already wrong, since gamma frequenciess greater than the 100th "octave"
have been observed.
I'm also pretty sure humans have generated waves at less than 10 Hz.
There's the "Jericho trumpet" work on the military applications of
ultra-low-frequency sound, where the speaker drivers are run in the
5 Hz range. There's also the ELF submarine communications systems,
but I don't offhand recall the wavelength.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Quite right. I just finished _Jingo_, but the denizens of the Unseen
> University on come into this one at the edges, so I had forgotten the
> important details. I do feel that Pratchett's version of reality
> makes more sense.
In case Absonite doesn't get it, Brent is referring to a series of
fantasy novels set on a flat planet resting on four elephants which
stand on a turtle, where the sun and the moon orbit the planet,
where the gods live on a mountain at the center of the Disc when
they aren't out throwing bricks through atheist's windows, where
wizards mess with the fabric of reality (generally depicted as a
denim, or perhaps flannel), and where Death quite literally walks
around and sometimes has a curry or a nice cuppa between jobs.
The fact that he finds this more sensible than Urantia should give
you some pause.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Absonite
>Date: Fri, Oct 23, 1998 3:07 PM
>Message-id: <3630D5...@research.bell-labs.com>
Thanks ken,
I'll stick to Urantia, I thought maybe I might find some life here on T.O,
but so far only a few sentient beings have come forward.
jeff wiel
: Sverker Johansson wrote:
: > Absonite wrote:
: > > more appropriate to call such variations "variable fields" than wave
: > > energy.
: > Arbitrary.
: But utterly necessary for the Urantia book to be correct, so obviously
: the term must be redefined. Of course as you point out The Book is
: already wrong, since gamma frequenciess greater than the 100th "octave"
: have been observed.
: I'm also pretty sure humans have generated waves at less than 10 Hz.
: There's the "Jericho trumpet" work on the military applications of
: ultra-low-frequency sound, where the speaker drivers are run in the
: 5 Hz range. There's also the ELF submarine communications systems,
: but I don't offhand recall the wavelength.
9 Hz. Which is a wavelength of about 33,000 kilometers. Which is an
actual electromagnetic wave, even though any submarine on Earth is in the
near field.
I don't believe the field equations preclude existance of EM waves at
_any_ frequency. At least, the classical equations are nice and
continuous. There might be some quantum limit on wavelength, but I suspect
it would be for extremely short, not long ones.
While I'm in this thread, what's the big deal about octaves? Periodicity
can be found in wavelengths for any integer. Octaves have no special
meaning, except as a product of how human hearing functions.
: --
: Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
David Iain Greig
>>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>>From: Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>
>>Date: Fri, Oct 23, 1998 3:07 PM
>>Message-id: <3630D5...@research.bell-labs.com>
>>
>>Brent Howatt wrote:
>>> Quite right. I just finished _Jingo_, but the denizens of the Unseen
>>> University on come into this one at the edges, so I had forgotten the
>>> important details. I do feel that Pratchett's version of reality
>>> makes more sense.
>>
>>In case Absonite doesn't get it, Brent is referring to a series of
>>fantasy novels set on a flat planet resting on four elephants which
>>stand on a turtle, where the sun and the moon orbit the planet,
>>where the gods live on a mountain at the center of the Disc when
>>they aren't out throwing bricks through atheist's windows, where
>>wizards mess with the fabric of reality (generally depicted as a
>>denim, or perhaps flannel), and where Death quite literally walks
>>around and sometimes has a curry or a nice cuppa between jobs.
>>
>>The fact that he finds this more sensible than Urantia should give
>>you some pause.
>>
>I'll stick to Urantia, I thought maybe I might find some life here on T.O,
>but so far only a few sentient beings have come forward.
So far, you've been wrong on the age of animal life, and the electromagnetic
spectrum. So much for the correctness of your book.
--D.
--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum
>
Absonite
>Date: Fri, Oct 23, 1998 6:15 PM
>Message-id: <slrn73200...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>
>So far, you've been wrong on the age of animal life, and the electromagnetic
>
>spectrum. So much for the correctness of your book.
>
>--D.
David,
I have not yet read enough of your material yet to know if you are qualified to
discuss this. I certainly am not qualified and need to depend on the
sophistication of legimate scientists and their research. My gut feeling
though is that the Urantia papers are correct and either the interpretations
are in error or some UB scientists are in error with their own calculations.
I would certainly be quite interested in proof that the book is wrong, but I
have not seen such as yet.
Perhaps Stefans calculations and others are in error and I am in the process of
forwarding some of the responses for feedback.
Regarding the age that life began I have not seen any proof that figure is
incorrect.
Below are the relevant direct quotes from the book which you can view for
yourself.
Regarding the octaves of wave energy, the book was written in 1934 so the 64
number apparently has changed. But, the book is quite specific that there are
not more than 100 . So, if there are more than 100 of whatever it is talking
about, obviously this statement is highly suspect and impinges on the
credibility of the other parts of the book. Apparently the reference to
"Ultimatons" is what we now call the neutrino. Orvonton is apparently our
Milky-way.
**
In the superuniverse of Orvonton there are one hundred octaves of wave energy.
Of these one hundred groups of energy manifestations, sixty-four are wholly or
partially recognized on Urantia. The sun's rays constitute four octaves in the
superuniverse scale, the visible rays embracing a single octave, number
forty-six in this series. The ultraviolet group comes next, while ten octaves
up are the X rays, followed by the gamma rays of radium. Thirty-two octaves
above the visible light of the sun are the outer-space energy rays so
frequently commingled with their associated highly energized minute particles
of matter. Next downward from visible sunlight appear the infrared rays, and
thirty octaves below are the radio transmission group.
Wavelike energy manifestations—from the standpoint of twentieth-century Urantia
scientific enlightenment—may be classified into the following ten groups:
1. Infraultimatonic rays—the borderland revolutions of ultimatons as they begin
to assume definite form. This is the first stage of emergent energy in which
wavelike phenomena can be detected and measured.
2. Ultimatonic rays. The assembly of energy into the minute spheres of the
ultimatons occasions vibrations in the content of space which are discernible
and measurable. And long before physicists ever discover the ultimaton, they
will undoubtedly detect the phenomena of these rays as they shower in upon
Urantia. These short and powerful rays represent the initial activity of the
ultimatons as they are slowed down to that point where they veer towards the
electronic organization of matter. As the ultimatons aggregate into electrons,
condensation occurs with a consequent storage of energy.
3. The short space rays. These are the shortest of all purely electronic
vibrations and represent the preatomic stage of this form of matter. These rays
require extraordinarily high or low temperatures for their production. There
are two sorts of these space rays: one attendant upon the birth of atoms and
the other indicative of atomic disruption. They emanate in the largest
quantities from the densest plane of the superuniverse, the Milky Way, which is
also the densest plane of the outer universes.
4. The electronic stage. This stage of energy is the basis of all
materialization in the seven superuniverses. When electrons pass from higher to
lower energy levels of orbital revolution, quanta are always given off. Orbital
shifting of electrons results in the ejection or the absorption of very
definite and uniform measurable particles of light-energy, while the individual
electron always gives up a particle of light-energy when subjected to
collision. Wavelike energy manifestations also attend upon the performances of
the positive bodies and the other members of the electronic stage.
5. Gamma rays—those emanations which characterize the spontaneous dissociation
of atomic matter. The best illustration of this form of electronic activity is
in the phenomena associated with radium disintegration.
6. The X-ray group. The next step in the slowing down of the electron yields
the various forms of solar X rays together with artificially generated X rays.
The electronic charge creates an electric field; movement gives rise to an
electric current; the current produces a magnetic field. When an electron is
suddenly stopped, the resultant electromagnetic commotion produces the X ray;
the X ray is that disturbance. The solar X rays are identical with those which
are mechanically generated for exploring the interior of- the human body except
that they are a trifle longer.
7. The ultraviolet or chemical rays of sunlight and the various mechanical
productions.
8. The white light—the whole visible light of the suns.
9. Infrared rays—the slowing down of electronic activity still nearer the stage
of appreciable heat.
IO. Hertzian waves—those energies utilized on Urantia for broadcasting.
Of all these ten phases of wavelike energy activity, the human eye can react to
just one octave, the whole light of ordinary sunlight.
The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force
and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass
aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit
through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of
recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy
particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other
intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave
phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of
the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to
the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing
of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the
energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of
energy-matter.
The excitation of the content of space produces a wavelike reaction to the
passage of rapidly moving particles of matter, just as the passage of a ship
through water initiates waves of varying amplitude and interval.
Primordial-force behavior does give rise to phenomena which are in many ways
analogous to your postulated ether. Space is not empty; the spheres of all
space whirl and plunge on through a vast ocean of outspread force-energy;
neither is the space content of an atom empty. Nevertheless there is no ether,
and the very absence of this hypothetical ether enables the inhabited planet to
escape falling into the sun and the encircling electron to resist falling into
the nucleus.
Now regarding life on Earth, it is stated that it began 550 million years ago.
Please explain how this is incorrect.
550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In
cooperation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and
initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the
hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary
personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its
origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life
implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the
central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western,
embracing Greenland and the Americas.
Thomas Paine
>>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>>Date: Fri, Oct 23, 1998 3:07 PM
>>Message-id: <3630D5...@research.bell-labs.com>
>>
>>Brent Howatt wrote:
>>> Quite right. I just finished _Jingo_, but the denizens of the Unseen
>>> University on come into this one at the edges, so I had forgotten the
>>> important details. I do feel that Pratchett's version of reality
>>> makes more sense.
>>
>>In case Absonite doesn't get it, Brent is referring to a series of
>>fantasy novels set on a flat planet resting on four elephants which
>>stand on a turtle, where the sun and the moon orbit the planet,
>>where the gods live on a mountain at the center of the Disc when
>>they aren't out throwing bricks through atheist's windows, where
>>wizards mess with the fabric of reality (generally depicted as a
>>denim, or perhaps flannel), and where Death quite literally walks
>>around and sometimes has a curry or a nice cuppa between jobs.
>>
>>The fact that he finds this more sensible than Urantia should give
>>you some pause.
>>
>>Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>
>Thanks ken,
>I'll stick to Urantia, I thought maybe I might find some life here on T.O,
>but so far only a few sentient beings have come forward.
No. There's no life here in T.O..
So you might as well go back to Urantia...
or, as we on the street call it.. "the ward."
>
Thomas Paine
>>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>>From: gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig)
>>Date: Fri, Oct 23, 1998 6:15 PM
>>Message-id: <slrn73200...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>>
>
>>So far, you've been wrong on the age of animal life, and the electromagnetic
>>
>>spectrum. So much for the correctness of your book.
>>
>>--D.
>
>David,
>I have not yet read enough of your material yet to know if you are qualified to
>discuss this.
Yet a mere superficial reading of your overwhelming abundance of irational and
irrelivant posts indicates that you are not.
I certainly am not qualified and need to depend on the
>sophistication of legimate scientists and their research.
Then why do you keep writing about this 1950's sci-fi crap?
My gut feeling
>though is that the Urantia papers are correct
My gut feeling is that along with the "aluminium foil hat", you should be
wearing a straight jacket.
and either the interpretations
>are in error or some UB scientists are in error with their own calculations.
>I would certainly be quite interested in proof that the book is wrong,
Go by a bookstand, pick up ANY comic book, and prove it's wrong.
Same thing.
but I
>have not seen such as yet.
The foil hat must be convering your eyes.
Certainly isn't any proof that it's any more right that any other sci-fi comic
book.
>Perhaps Stefans calculations and others are in error and I am in the process of
>forwarding some of the responses for feedback.
Do you sent them via regular radio waves, or do you have a special decoder
ring too?
>Regarding the age that life began I have not seen any proof that figure is
>incorrect.
The age is unimportant; it's the "The spacement did it" that's a riot.
>Below are the relevant direct quotes from the book
(snip....flush)
David Iain Greig
>>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>>From: gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig)
>>Date: Fri, Oct 23, 1998 6:15 PM
>>Message-id: <slrn73200...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>>
>
>>So far, you've been wrong on the age of animal life, and the electromagnetic
>>
>>spectrum. So much for the correctness of your book.
>>
>>--D.
>
>David,
>I have not yet read enough of your material yet to know if you are qualified to
>discuss this.
Well, since there was a recent discovery of animal fossils from something like
one billion years BP, the 550 million year date you mentioned in another thread
is pretty much wrong. Also, there is a well known fauna known as the Ediacaran
fauna that existed between 620 and 550 million years ago. I might suggest
any decent paleobiology text as a reference on the latter.
Also, others have pointed out the frequency limits you gave are arbitrary,
and also wrong.
--D.
Absonite
>Message-id: <slrn734tvb...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>
>Absonite <abso...@aol.comNoBull> wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>>>From: gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig)
>>>Date: Fri, Oct 23, 1998 6:15 PM
>>>Message-id: <slrn73200...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>>>
>>
>>>So far, you've been wrong on the age of animal life, and the electromagnetic
>>>
>>>spectrum. So much for the correctness of your book.
>>>
>>>--D.
>>
>>David,
>>I have not yet read enough of your material yet to know if you are qualified
>to
>>discuss this.
>
>Well, since there was a recent discovery of animal fossils from something
>like
>one billion years BP, the 550 million year date you mentioned in another
>thread
>is pretty much wrong. Also, there is a well known fauna known as the
Ediacaran
>fauna that existed between 620 and 550 million years ago. I might suggest
>
>any decent paleobiology text as a reference on the latter.
>
>Also, others have pointed out the frequency limits you gave are arbitrary,
>and also wrong.
>
>--D.
>
>
I can understand where you are coming from and I respect your views according
to the research you believe you have. I cannot of course refute it except to
say that you will probably find that the "methods of dating are inaccurate".
It would be impossible for the fossils to be a billion years old, and the
fauna you mention has a apparent range of 620-550 million years ago. A
discrepancy of 70 million years. The lower end dating (550 million years)
would be the correct one.
As far as the frequency of 100 octaves being the limit, I'm quite sure that it
will be found correct as well. At this point I do not know what causes the
discrepancy, but shortly I will and post it here.
Please post your references on the 1 billion year old fossils.
Thanks,
A
Steve Henderson
In other words, since the evidence doesn't agree with my particular religious
beliefs, the evidence must be wrong. Fits right in with the basic creationist
beliefs so often expressed here. Urantia appears to be just another whacky
religion based on a layman's understanding of the physical universe at the
time it was written and then dressed up with lots of religious trappings to
appeal to the gullible.
}It would be impossible for the fossils to be a billion years old, and the
}fauna you mention has a apparent range of 620-550 million years ago. A
}discrepancy of 70 million years. The lower end dating (550 million years)
}would be the correct one.
See above. Translation: Fossils can't be that old because my religion says so.
Too bad that the world doesn't obey the dictates of your religion.
}As far as the frequency of 100 octaves being the limit, I'm quite sure that
}it will be found correct as well. At this point I do not know what causes
}the discrepancy, but shortly I will and post it here.
}Please post your references on the 1 billion year old fossils.
See above.
At this point, I'm left with more respect for classic creationists like Karl.
He may suffer from ignorance and religious blinders, but at least his religion
is a real one with real traditions instead of a cobbled togeather hodge podge
of misunderstood science refered to by made up names covered over with
religious trappings.
Enslaved, illogical, elate,
He greets the embarrassed Gods, nor fears,
To shake the iron hand of Fate
Or match with Destiny for beers.
An American (Rudyard Kipling)
Use ashland at ccnet dot com to email me.
Thomas Paine
He did say it was easily checked out. Apparently you don't intend to verify
it, only insult it.
I cannot of course refute it except to
>say that you will probably find that the "methods of dating are inaccurate".
Is this a real quote from a reliable source? Or did you just like playing with
the """""""""""""?
>It would be impossible for the fossils to be a billion years old, and the
>fauna you mention has a apparent range of 620-550 million years ago. A
>discrepancy of 70 million years. The lower end dating (550 million years)
>would be the correct one.
And your scientific proof of this is...?
And I mean scientific...not science fiction.
>
>As far as the frequency of 100 octaves being the limit, I'm quite sure that it
>will be found correct as well. At this point I do not know what causes the
>discrepancy, but shortly I will and post it here.
>Please post your references on the 1 billion year old fossils.
>Thanks,
I'd rather see yours; but somehow I suspect that either you have none..or
you'd only repeat garbage from your Uranting comic book.
David Iain Greig
>>>>electromagnetic spectrum. So much for the correctness of your book.
>>>
>>>I have not yet read enough of your material yet to know if you are
>>>qualified to discuss this.
>>
>>Well, since there was a recent discovery of animal fossils from something
>>like one billion years BP, the 550 million year date you mentioned
>>in another thread is pretty much wrong. Also, there is a well
>>known fauna known as the Ediacaran
>>fauna that existed between 620 and 550 million years ago. I might suggest
>>any decent paleobiology text as a reference on the latter.
>>
>>Also, others have pointed out the frequency limits you gave are arbitrary,
>>and also wrong.
>>
>I can understand where you are coming from and I respect your views according
>say that you will probably find that the "methods of dating are inaccurate".
>fauna you mention has a apparent range of 620-550 million years ago. A
>discrepancy of 70 million years. The lower end dating (550 million years)
>would be the correct one.
Actually, the strata they are found in are dated from 620 Mya over 70 Mya to
550 Mya. They are not one single level. I'd ask Chris Nedin to speak
on this. Or Andrew Macrae.
>As far as the frequency of 100 octaves being the limit, I'm quite sure that
>it will be found correct as well. At this point I do not know what causes the
>discrepancy, but shortly I will and post it here.
You are clearly not interested in science; you are unwilling to accept
physical evidence that clearly contradicts your book.
>Please post your references on the 1 billion year old fossils.
The article was published in the journal Science. A reference to it
is made in the following URL (kudos to Tom Scharle):
http://www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DailyNews/worm980930.html
>Thanks,
You're quite welcome; what I would prefer to your thanks is, however, for you
to show a true spirit of honest inquiry. The physics and biology of
the Urantian book are clearly wrong in these matters. Your inability
to accept or even entertain this fact indicates you are not a seeker of
truth, but a follower.
>>>Now regarding life on Earth, it is stated that it began 550 million years
>>ago.
>>> Please explain how this is incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>>550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In
>>>cooperation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized
>>and
>>>initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in
>>the
>>>hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary
>>>personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had
>>its
>>>origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life
>>>implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as:
>>the
>>>central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western,
>>>embracing Greenland and the Americas.
Since animal life clearly predates 550 Mya, the book is wrong.
--D.
Absonite
>Message-id: <slrn73ac5k...@darwin.ediacara.org>
Since I do not really know these people I would suppose from inference that
they have some expertise in this area. I would welcome their views and the
accuracy and investigation of the dating method.
>
>>As far as the frequency of 100 octaves being the limit, I'm quite sure
>that
>>it will be found correct as well. At this point I do not know what causes
>the
>>discrepancy, but shortly I will and post it here.
>
>You are clearly not interested in science; you are unwilling to accept
>physical evidence that clearly contradicts your book.
Your comment and apparent erroneous insight are incorrect. I would very much
like to accept valid evidence to the contrary. Please someone prove this book
incorrect. Although the Urantia book states within it that the science and
cosmology within is not inspired and as science progresses from 1934 "some
statements will need revision" also the qualification that unearned knowlege is
not always supplied, I DO NOT think the statements of "550 Mya" will be one of
them.
姫aper 101 [Pg 1109]
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.
>
>>Please post your references on the 1 billion year old fossils.
>
>The article was published in the journal Science. A reference to it
>is made in the following URL (kudos to Tom Scharle):
>
>http://www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DailyNews/worm980930.html
Thank you Tom Scharle and David Iain Greig,
I will read that now and also save this for my questions to the Urantia group.
>
>>Thanks,
>
>You're quite welcome; what I would prefer to your thanks is, however, for
>you
>to show a true spirit of honest inquiry. The physics and biology of
>the Urantian book are clearly wrong in these matters. Your inability
>to accept or even entertain this fact indicates you are not a seeker of
>truth, but a follower.
>
That also is an unfair statement. "Clearly wrong" may not be as YOU think it
is.
I "AM" (different from the I AM) entertaining this discrepency and my
inquiries ARE sincere and honest.
In a way I think that many so-called scientists are in a way similar to
Christian or any other (Urantian if you prefer) Fundamentalists. They seem to
go from one lastest discovery or "Theory" to another and accept it as gospel
until, of course, it is proven wrong by newer discoveries. We all have seen
tooooo much of that.
>
>>>>Now regarding life on Earth, it is stated that it began 550 million
>years
>>>ago.
>>>> Please explain how this is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In
>>>>cooperation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized
>>>and
>>>>initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in
>>>the
>>>>hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from
extraplanetary
>>>>personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince,
>had
>>>its
>>>>origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life
>>>>implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as:
>>>the
>>>>central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western,
>>>>embracing Greenland and the Americas.
>
>Since animal life clearly predates 550 Mya, the book is wrong.
>
>--D.
>
As I said earlier "Clearly" may not be clearly 10 years from now.
There is *much* detailed work on rock strata and fossils in the Ub and I will
do some serious reading about it and how it might apply to this "clearly" (;
erroneous date of 620Mya.
A.
Absonite
>From: gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig)
>Date: Mon, Oct 26, 1998 10:32 PM
>Message-id: <slrn73ac5k...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>You're quite welcome; what I would prefer to your thanks is, however, for
>you
>to show a true spirit of honest inquiry. The physics and biology of
>the Urantian book are clearly wrong in these matters. Your inability
>to accept or even entertain this fact indicates you are not a seeker of
>truth, but a follower.
>
>--D.
Just some initial feedback David, while looking at some text about strata I
found the following which is probably quite interesting in and of itself.
姫aper 064 [Pg 720]
(( 900,000 years ago)
To the east of the Badonan peoples, in the Siwalik Hills of northern India, may
be found fossils that approach nearer to transition types between man and the
various prehuman groups than any others on earth.
Urantia book 1934 c1955
Now, how much more specific can they be. !!!
Have we found these yet or just when do you think we will?
Sverker Johansson
> >Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
> >From: gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig)
> >Date: Mon, Oct 26, 1998 10:32 PM
> >Message-id: <slrn73ac5k...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>
> >You're quite welcome; what I would prefer to your thanks is, however, for
> >you
> >to show a true spirit of honest inquiry. The physics and biology of
> >the Urantian book are clearly wrong in these matters. Your inability
> >to accept or even entertain this fact indicates you are not a seeker of
> >truth, but a follower.
> >
>
> >--D.
>
> Just some initial feedback David, while looking at some text about strata I
> found the following which is probably quite interesting in and of itself.
As usual, you quote the ub, instead of responding with your own words.
> 姫aper 064 [Pg 720]
> (( 900,000 years ago)
> To the east of the Badonan peoples, in the Siwalik Hills of northern India, may
> be found fossils that approach nearer to transition types between man and the
> various prehuman groups than any others on earth.
> Urantia book 1934 c1955
>
> Now, how much more specific can they be. !!!
> Have we found these yet or just when do you think we will?
We found "them" (Ramapithecus) in the early 30s. At the time the ub was
published, Ramapithecus was widely believed to be a "transition type
between man and the various prehuman groups". Later finds have
shown this to be wrong - R was more related to orangutangs.
As usual, the ub is shown to be wrong, and is shown to be
based on 1940s pop science.
I agree fully with David's statement above. Will you please
address it, WITHOUT quoting your book!
Thomas Scharle
[...snip...]
|> Well, since there was a recent discovery of animal fossils from something like
|> one billion years BP, the 550 million year date you mentioned in another thread
|> is pretty much wrong. Also, there is a well known fauna known as the Ediacaran
|> fauna that existed between 620 and 550 million years ago. I might suggest
|> any decent paleobiology text as a reference on the latter.
Just seen in "Nature" magazine:
Martin Basier
From deeptime to late arrivals
Nature vol 395 (8 October 1998) pp. 547-548
This discusses these trace fossils from 1 billion years ago,
and mentions doubts about the age of the formation in which the
fossils were found.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Absonite
>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 6:46 AM
>Message-id: <3635A638...@no.hlk.fucking.hj.spam.se>
Sverker,
First of all,
*Apparently* you are incorrect but thank you for the attempt. A simple search
has yielded the following. Rather than "Ramapithecus" it is quite interesting
that "Dryopithecus" was found **exactly** in the "Siwalik Hills of northern
India" as the Urantia book stated in 1934- c1955
I have not discovered yet what the date of this discovery was.
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_28_97/timeline.htm
From what i have read about "Ramapithecus", even that has not been proven
wrong, simply a theory leaning both ways and the evidence itself was very
sparse.
Secondly, what is your problem with quoting relevant passages from the UB
which btw has *not* been proven wrong yet, when trying to understand the
information circa 1990's science discovery? This fascination of "in your own
words" has no special meaning whatsoever. You and others constantly refer to
other peoples words or research when trying to prove some point. Simply
rewriting someone else's research into your own words, thereby diluting the
original meaning or possibly causing confusion, really has no basis for
evaulating anything. It is reminicent of grade school teachers.
I am trying to either prove or disprove some of the information in the book and
so far that has not been done by you or anyone else.
So far the Urantia information stands as the highest authority available of
substantial and unequaled revelatory information in every area of science and
religion known to exist.
How do you suppose some people in chicago in the 1930's could say "in the
Siwalik Hills of northern India, may be found fossils that approach nearer to
transition types between man and the various prehuman groups than any others on
earth.". and then "Dryopithecus" is later found ???
This of course is only one sentence in the plethora of *Detailed* information
about evolution.
Perhaps it is time for you to get off this cursory evaluation of yours "1940s
pop science." ?
Absonite
>energy
>From: sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas Scharle)
>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 1:11 PM
>Message-id: <714vbl$7...@news.nd.edu>
Thank you Tom.
I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks of
possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
So far the date 550 Mya as the beginning of life holds up quite nicely.
Absonite
>From: abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite)
>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 1:37 PM
>Message-id: <19981027124549...@ng134.aol.com>
>
>How do you suppose some people in chicago in the 1930's could say "in the
>Siwalik Hills of northern India, may be found fossils that approach nearer
>to
>transition types between man and the various prehuman groups than any others
>on
>earth.". and then "Dryopithecus" is later found ???
>This of course is only one sentence in the plethora of *Detailed* information
>about evolution.
>
Reply to my own post****
My apologies, in my apparent zeal upon finding this "Siwalik Hills"
reference, I noticed it was a 1997 reprint of a 1927 article. Although this
"might" answer my own question from above it nonetheless does not prove the
information false. Only that it may support the information in the text.
My initial feeling would be that the information is correct.
Honus
> Your comment and apparent erroneous insight are incorrect. I would very much
> like to accept valid evidence to the contrary. Please someone prove this book
> incorrect. Although the Urantia book states within it that the science and
> cosmology within is not inspired and as science progresses from 1934 "some
> statements will need revision" also the qualification that unearned knowlege is
I'm confused here. Here's what I've gotten so far. The book was
channeled to humans by extra-terrestrial beings far beyond our level of
development. And everything in the book is inspired *except* the science
and cosomology parts? The parts that we would most certainly be able to
expect these E.T.'s to have gotten right? The parts that we can verify?
The parts that would vindicate this entire religion, if in actuality the
facts presented in the 1930's turned out to be true?
I mean, talk about covering your ass.
> 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.
Like I said...CYA.
--
Death to Spammers.
Remove the HORMEL anti-spam device from my address to reply by e-mail.
Jack King
>
>
> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks of
> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
> So far the date 550 Mya as the beginning of life holds up quite nicely.
The first multicellular eukaryots date back circa 1 b.y.a. The
first primative bacteria date to circa 3.8 b.y.a. Perhaps you
are you thinking of the first rapid radiation of invertibrates
during the early Cambrian period.
--
Jack King
jack...@baynetworks.com
http://www.bit-net.com/~jackking/
Check out a GREAT vacation villa in the Caribbean
http://www.stjohnusvi.com/coralmoonvilla/
Boikat
>
> In article <slrn734tvb...@darwin.ediacara.org>, gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig) writes:
> [...snip...]
> |> Well, since there was a recent discovery of animal fossils from something like
> |> one billion years BP, the 550 million year date you mentioned in another thread
> |> is pretty much wrong. Also, there is a well known fauna known as the Ediacaran
> |> fauna that existed between 620 and 550 million years ago. I might suggest
> |> any decent paleobiology text as a reference on the latter.
> [...snip...]
>
> Just seen in "Nature" magazine:
>
> Martin Basier
> From deeptime to late arrivals
> Nature vol 395 (8 October 1998) pp. 547-548
>
> This discusses these trace fossils from 1 billion years ago,
> and mentions doubts about the age of the formation in which the
> fossils were found.
>
Yup. They're sure to retest the formation (and
those above and below) again. Wouldn't it be a
kick if they were *older*? :} Or, the same as
they are dated at now, is more likely, though with
a smaller margin for error.
Boikat
#3 Loudmouth for September and "Ruffian" at large.
Chris Nedin
>
>In article <slrn734tvb...@darwin.ediacara.org>, gr...@ediacara.org (David
>Iain Greig) writes:
>[...snip...]
|> Well, since there was a recent discovery of animal fossils from something
|> like one billion years BP, the 550 million year date you mentioned in
|> another thread is pretty much wrong. Also, there is a well known fauna
|> known as the Ediacaran fauna that existed between 620 and 550 million years
|> ago. I might suggest any decent paleobiology text as a reference on the
|>latter.
>[...snip...]
>
> Just seen in "Nature" magazine:
>
> Martin Basier
> From deeptime to late arrivals
> Nature vol 395 (8 October 1998) pp. 547-548
>
> This discusses these trace fossils from 1 billion years ago,
>and mentions doubts about the age of the formation in which the
>fossils were found.
I, for one, remain unconvinced that these are trace fossils because the rock
slab itself appears to be composed of a very tiny bed/layer of sandstone on
top of a much thicker bed/layer. This would make the thin sand, which
contains the 'trace fossils', very susceptable to spalling or fretting during
weathering. A process which can produce all sorts of weird shapes. Also, if,
as seems likely, the original, thin sand was bound together by bacterial mats,
the features figured in the article may well be cracks. These cracks could be
caused by dessication and/or by loading by subsequent deposition of overlying
event beds. Such cracks would not conform to a 'typical' crack architecture
since the bacterial binding would result in a non-random crack propogation due
to the presence of greater or lesser degrees of binding.
There is also some question as to the accuracy of the age of the rocks
concerned, although this is a minor concern as I don't think they are trace
fossils anyway.
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| | "How can Nedin be trusted?" |
| ne...@ediacara.org | C Wieland Director, |
| *my views only* | Creation Research Foundation, |
| | Queensland, Australia. |
---------- http://members.tripod.com/~Cambrian/index.html ----------
maff91
wrote:
>Absonite wrote:
>>
>>
>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks of
>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>> So far the date 550 Mya as the beginning of life holds up quite nicely.
>
>The first multicellular eukaryots date back circa 1 b.y.a. The
>first primative bacteria date to circa 3.8 b.y.a. Perhaps you
>are you thinking of the first rapid radiation of invertibrates
>during the early Cambrian period.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F183000/183596.stm
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
dr...@azsunset.com
Would you like some hot sauce with that helping of crow?
Daniel "Theophage" Clark
http://www.azsunset.com/~drdan
- Got Reason?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Absonite
>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 9:17 AM
>Message-id: <7168dt$sm4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
>Would you like some hot sauce with that helping of crow?
The hot sauce had been flowing quite readily for awhile now. Anything more
mild?
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
wrote:
>Absonite wrote:
>>
>>
>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks of
>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>> So far the date 550 Mya as the beginning of life holds up quite nicely.
>
>The first multicellular eukaryots date back circa 1 b.y.a.
Thes are traces in algal mats, not the organsisms themselves. The
actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
>The
>first primative bacteria date to circa 3.8 b.y.a.
The first bacterial _fossils_ are at 3.5 Gyr. The data from 3.8 Gyr
is carbon isotope ratios.
(Mojzsis SJ, Arrhenius G, McKeegan KD, Harrison TM, Nutman AP, and
Friend CR. (1996 Nov 7). Evidence for life on Earth before 3,800
million years ago [see comments] Nature , 384, 55-9.)
>Perhaps you
>are you thinking of the first rapid radiation of invertibrates
>during the early Cambrian period.
Recent finds of embryos suggest that metazoans were around at 600-650
Gyr.
Cheers! Ian
=========================================================
Ian, Peta and Jack Francis, reynella at werple dot mira dot net dot au
http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/ (no TO stuff)
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm (weasle prgrams)
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/hols1.htm (ruminations on the Ark)
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/ssky.htm (southern sky watch)
Tree planters, Terry Pratchett fans and sometime scientists (De Chelonian Mobile)
Chris Nedin
says...
[deleted]
>>>>David,
>>>>I have not yet read enough of your material yet to know if you are
>>>>qualified to discuss this.
>>>
>>>Well, since there was a recent discovery of animal fossils from something
>>>like one billion years BP, the 550 million year date you mentioned
>>>in another thread is pretty much wrong. Also, there is a well
>>>known fauna known as the Ediacaran
>>>fauna that existed between 620 and 550 million years ago. I might suggest
>>>any decent paleobiology text as a reference on the latter.
>>>
>>>Also, others have pointed out the frequency limits you gave are arbitrary,
>>>and also wrong.
>>>
>>David,
>>I can understand where you are coming from and I respect your views according
>>to the research you believe you have. I cannot of course refute it except to
>>say that you will probably find that the "methods of dating are inaccurate".
>>It would be impossible for the fossils to be a billion years old, and the
>>fauna you mention has a apparent range of 620-550 million years ago. A
>>discrepancy of 70 million years. The lower end dating (550 million years)
>>would be the correct one.
>
>Actually, the strata they are found in are dated from 620 Mya over 70 Mya to
>550 Mya. They are not one single level. I'd ask Chris Nedin to speak
>on this. Or Andrew Macrae.
You rang?
The Ediacara fauna are found on a number of continents and span an interval of
time from approx. 565 Mya (+-) to 540 mya (+-)(Cambrian-Precambrian boundary).
In some areas they occur dispersed in a section some kilometres in thickness
(such as Newfoundland). The oldest examples of a diverse fauna comes from North
Carolina where the fauna (containing the form _Pteridinium_) has been dated at
approx 565 mya by U-Pd dating of an immediately underlying tuff. If you accept
a more simple fauna (mainly discs) then you can push the oldest faunas back to
approx 600 mya (in northwestern Canada (e.g. Narbonne 1998)
>>As far as the frequency of 100 octaves being the limit, I'm quite sure that
>>it will be found correct as well. At this point I do not know what causes the
>>discrepancy, but shortly I will and post it here.
>
>You are clearly not interested in science; you are unwilling to accept
>physical evidence that clearly contradicts your book.
>
>>Please post your references on the 1 billion year old fossils.
>
>The article was published in the journal Science. A reference to it
>is made in the following URL (kudos to Tom Scharle):
>
>http://www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DailyNews/worm980930.html
Actually, I don't think it's a fossil (ooooh, controversy!!)
>>>>Now regarding life on Earth, it is stated that it began 550 million years
>>>ago.
>>>> Please explain how this is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In
>>>>cooperation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized
>>>>and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in
>>>>the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from
>>>>extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the
>>>>Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and
>>>>simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have
>>>>been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or
>>>>Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.
Umm, there is fossil evidence for life (as separate from metazoan or animal
life) being here for 3 billion years, so do you mean animal life or life in
general?
Chris
Narbonne, G. M. (1998) The Ediacaran biota: A terminal Neoproterozoic experiment
in the evolution of life. GSA Today, 8(2): 1-6.
Kelvin Mok
Scharle) wrote:
>In article <slrn734tvb...@darwin.ediacara.org>, gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig) writes:
>[...snip...]
>|> Well, since there was a recent discovery of animal fossils from something like
>|> one billion years BP, the 550 million year date you mentioned in another thread
>|> is pretty much wrong. Also, there is a well known fauna known as the Ediacaran
>|> fauna that existed between 620 and 550 million years ago. I might suggest
>|> any decent paleobiology text as a reference on the latter.
>[...snip...]
>
> Just seen in "Nature" magazine:
>
> Martin Basier
> From deeptime to late arrivals
> Nature vol 395 (8 October 1998) pp. 547-548
>
> This discusses these trace fossils from 1 billion years ago,
>and mentions doubts about the age of the formation in which the
>fossils were found.
>
>
>--
>Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
>
A more commonly available publication will be the National Geographic
, March 1998 issue "The Rise of Life on Earth" with complete beautiful
illustrations and very readable text. Reading NATURE is very heavy
going.
KelvinMok
klmok@.shaw.wave.ca
Absonite
>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:52 PM
>Message-id: <716tc2$f...@drn.newsguy.com>
>
>In article <slrn73ac5k...@darwin.ediacara.org>, gr...@ediacara.org
>says...
>>
>>Absonite <abso...@aol.comNoBull> wrote:
>>>>From: gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig)
>
>[deleted]
>
>>>>>David,
>>>>>I have not yet read enough of your material yet to know if you are
>>>>>qualified to discuss this.
>>>>
>>>>like one billion years BP, the 550 million year date you mentioned
>>>>in another thread is pretty much wrong. Also, there is a well
>>>>known fauna known as the Ediacaran
>>>>fauna that existed between 620 and 550 million years ago. I might suggest
>>>>any decent paleobiology text as a reference on the latter.
>>>>
O.K Chris,
Nice that you joined us.
"The Ediacara fauna are found on a number of continents and span an intervalof
>time from approx. 565 Mya (+-) to 540 mya (+-)(Cambrian-Precambrian boundary).
Close enough to the Urantia book 550 Mya and probably closer to 540 giving it
10 to develop.
">>http://www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DailyNews/worm980930.html
"Actually, I don't think it's a fossil (ooooh, controversy!!)"
Not a real controversy, as someone said earlier it is simply a design in the
sand.
"Umm, there is fossil evidence for life (as separate from metazoan or animal
life) being here for 3 billion years, so do you mean animal life or life in
general?"
No life. There is no evidence for any life or fossils over 550 Mya or will
there ever be any evidence simply because there was none b4 550Mya. Not on
this planet anyway.
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy
>From: Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 5:38 PM
>Message-id: <36363F17...@baynetworks.com>
>
>Absonite wrote:
>>
>>
>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks
>of
>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>> So far the date 550 Mya as the beginning of life holds up quite nicely.
>
>first primative bacteria date to circa 3.8 b.y.a. Perhaps you
>are you thinking of the first rapid radiation of invertibrates
>during the early Cambrian period.
>
>
>
Jack,
Nothing alive dates back beyond 550 Mya on this planet. Nothing. Try
recalibrating your instruments.
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy
>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
>
>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
>
>On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks
>of
>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
The
>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
>
>Cheers! Ian
Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
Steve Henderson
abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
}>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
}>From: Chris Nedin <cne...@ediacara.org>
}>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:52 PM
}>Message-id: <716tc2$f...@drn.newsguy.com>
Stuff snipped for bandwidth
}>"Umm, there is fossil evidence for life (as separate from metazoan or animal
}>life) being here for 3 billion years, so do you mean animal life or life in
}>general?"
}
}No life. There is no evidence for any life or fossils over 550 Mya or will
}there ever be any evidence simply because there was none b4 550Mya. Not on
}this planet anyway.
Wrong. As Chris stated, there is plenty of evidence for life going back
roughly 3 billion years. To say there is none indicates either pretty
substantial ignorance of the history of life on earth or an inability to
accept any evidence that counters your religious beliefs. Or, of course, flat
out lying.
In your case I would tend to discount the lying, since I just don't think that
the Urantia book would inspire a "lying for Jesus" syndrome. I rather suspect
a combination of the first and second reasons. I am sorry for you that the
evidence falsifies some of the "revealed wisdom" in your religious texts, but
that's the problem with the real world, it simply doesn't care much one way or
the other about our beliefs, it simply is.
Steve Henderson
abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
}>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
}electromagnetic
}>energy
}>From: reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au (Ian Musgrave & Peta
O'Donohue)
}>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
}>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
}>
}>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
}>
}>On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
}>wrote:
}>
}>>Absonite wrote:
}>>>
}>>>
}>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
tracks
}>of
}>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
}
} The
}>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
}
}>
}>Cheers! Ian
}
}Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
}
Steve Henderson
abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
}>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
}electromagnetic
}>energy
}>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 5:38 PM
}>Message-id: <36363F17...@baynetworks.com>
}>
}>>
}>>
}>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks
}>of
}>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
}>
}>The first multicellular eukaryots date back circa 1 b.y.a. The
}>first primative bacteria date to circa 3.8 b.y.a. Perhaps you
}>are you thinking of the first rapid radiation of invertibrates
}>during the early Cambrian period.
}>
}>
}>
}>--
}> Jack King
}> jack...@baynetworks.com
}> http://www.bit-net.com/~jackking/
}
}Jack,
}Nothing alive dates back beyond 550 Mya on this planet. Nothing. Try
}recalibrating your instruments.
}
much absolute. Unfortunately, it doesn't agree with your religious beliefs.
Too bad.
Absonite
>From: ju...@trash.garbage (Steve Henderson)
>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 10:12 PM
>Message-id: <718jfs$8an$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>
>
>In article <19981028203717...@ng21.aol.com>,
> abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
>}>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>}>From: Chris Nedin <cne...@ediacara.org>
>}>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:52 PM
>}>Message-id: <716tc2$f...@drn.newsguy.com>
>
>Stuff snipped for bandwidth
>
>}>"Umm, there is fossil evidence for life (as separate from metazoan or
>animal
>}>life) being here for 3 billion years, so do you mean animal life or life
>in
>}>general?"
>}
>}No life. There is no evidence for any life or fossils over 550 Mya or
>will
>}there ever be any evidence simply because there was none b4 550Mya. Not
>on
>}this planet anyway.
>
>Wrong. As Chris stated, there is plenty of evidence for life going back
>
>roughly 3 billion years. To say there is none indicates either pretty
>substantial ignorance of the history of life on earth or an inability to
>
>accept any evidence that counters your religious beliefs.
I will accept any valid evidence. Show me any substantiated evidence of life 3
billion ya.
The planet is only 4.5 billion. Of course the research can be wrong and the
dating can be wrong or perhaps some deeper lava flows were mixed with younger
fossils.
Or, of course,
>flat
>out lying.
>
>In your case I would tend to discount the lying, since I just don't think
>that
>the Urantia book would inspire a "lying for Jesus" syndrome. I rather suspect
>
>a combination of the first and second reasons. I am sorry for you that the
>
>evidence falsifies some of the "revealed wisdom" in your religious texts,
>but
>that's the problem with the real world, it simply doesn't care much one
>way or
>the other about our beliefs, it simply is.
Perhaps you will find in your own lifetime that your "Theory" of 3 billion y.o.
life is quite farfetched.
900,000,000 years ago
The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface cooling
alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the surface
of the world anything of this original planetary crust. It has all been mixed
up too many times with extruding lavas of deep origins and admixed with
subsequent deposits of the early world-wide ocean.
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,
up-crumpled, and again and again have they passed through these distorting
metamorphic experiences.
Throughout the oceanic ages, enormous layers of fossil-free stratified stone
were deposited on this ancient ocean bottom. (Limestone can form as a result of
chemical precipitation; not all of the older limestone was produced by
marine-life deposition.) In none of these ancient rock formations will there be
found evidences of life; they contain no fossils unless, by some chance, later
deposits of the water ages have become mixed with these older prelife layers.
姫aper 057 [Pg 661]
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy
>From: ju...@trash.garbage (Steve Henderson)
>Message-id: <718jo7$8an$3...@news.ncal.verio.com>
>
>In article <19981028204108...@ng21.aol.com>,
> abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
>}>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
>}electromagnetic
>}>energy
>}>From: Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>}>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 5:38 PM
>}>Message-id: <36363F17...@baynetworks.com>
>}>
>}>Absonite wrote:
>}>>
>}>>
>}>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
>tracks
>}>of
>}>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>}>> So far the date 550 Mya as the beginning of life holds up quite nicely.
>}>
>}>The first multicellular eukaryots date back circa 1 b.y.a. The
>}>first primative bacteria date to circa 3.8 b.y.a. Perhaps you
>}>are you thinking of the first rapid radiation of invertibrates
>}>during the early Cambrian period.
>}>
>}>
>}>
>}>--
>}> Jack King
>}> jack...@baynetworks.com
>}> http://www.bit-net.com/~jackking/
>}
>}Jack,
>}Nothing alive dates back beyond 550 Mya on this planet. Nothing. Try
>}recalibrating your instruments.
>}
>Try recalibrating your brain. The evidence is clear, conclusive and pretty
>
>
Don't bet on it Steve.
Please provide a ref. for 3.8 byo life.
Craig Franck
>I will accept any valid evidence. Show me any substantiated evidence of
>life 3 billion ya.
Part of the problem is the further back you go, the less evidence
there is simply because the first forms of life were such that
they didn't leave much in the way of fossil records. It's almost
certain that life existed on this planet at a time previous to our
ability to demonstrate it's existence.
--
Craig
clfr...@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
*plonk* right back at ya! -- "Country Boy"
Steve Henderson
Craig Franck <clfr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
}abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
}
}>I will accept any valid evidence. Show me any substantiated evidence of
}>life 3 billion ya.
}
}Part of the problem is the further back you go, the less evidence
}there is simply because the first forms of life were such that
}they didn't leave much in the way of fossil records. It's almost
}certain that life existed on this planet at a time previous to our
}ability to demonstrate it's existence.
}
years before the evidence becomes really fuzzy and there is some evidence of
live back to at least 3.8 billion years ago.
Steve Henderson
abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
}>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
}>From: ju...@trash.garbage (Steve Henderson)}>In article <19981028203717...@ng21.aol.com>,
}> abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
}>}>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
}>}>From: Chris Nedin <cne...@ediacara.org>
}>}>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:52 PM
}>}>Message-id: <716tc2$f...@drn.newsguy.com>
}>Stuff snipped for bandwidth
}>}>"Umm, there is fossil evidence for life (as separate from metazoan or
}>}>animal life) being here for 3 billion years, so do you mean animal life or
}>}>life in general?"
}>}
}>}No life. There is no evidence for any life or fossils over 550 Mya or
}>}will there ever be any evidence simply because there was none b4 550Mya.
}>}Not on this planet anyway.
}>
}>Wrong. As Chris stated, there is plenty of evidence for life going back
}>roughly 3 billion years. To say there is none indicates either pretty
}>substantial ignorance of the history of life on earth or an inability to
}>accept any evidence that counters your religious beliefs.
}
}I will accept any valid evidence. Show me any substantiated evidence of life
}3 billion ya. The planet is only 4.5 billion. Of course the research can be
}wrong and the dating can be wrong or perhaps some deeper lava flows were
}mixed with younger fossils.
Start with any good textbook on paleontology or even geology. The evidence
seems pretty solid that the surface had stabilized by somewhere around 4
billion years ago. Basically, however, all the evidence shows pretty much the
same thing, life starting early and remaining at the bacterial level for a
very long period of time. Opposing this view is basically your belief in the
Urantia book, which appears to be based on layman science from the 1950's
dressed up with fancy words. I will go with the evidence as, I suspect, will
pretty much anyone that isn't blinded by the religious will to believe that
you show.
}>Or, of course, flat out lying.
}>
}>In your case I would tend to discount the lying, since I just don't think
}>that the Urantia book would inspire a "lying for Jesus" syndrome. I rather
}>suspect a combination of the first and second reasons. I am sorry for you
}>that the evidence falsifies some of the "revealed wisdom" in your religious
}>texts, but that's the problem with the real world, it simply doesn't care
}>much one way or the other about our beliefs, it simply is.
}
}Perhaps you will find in your own lifetime that your "Theory" of 3 billion
}y.o. life is quite farfetched.
Not too likely. However, if evidence was found that demonstrated something
different I'm open to change. Trust me, however, the Urantia book is not
evidence.
}900,000,000 years ago
}The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface
}cooling alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the
}surface of the world anything of this original planetary crust. It has all
}been mixed up too many times with extruding lavas of deep origins and admixed
}with subsequent deposits of the early world-wide ocean.
}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,
}up-crumpled, and again and again have they passed through these distorting
}metamorphic experiences.
}Throughout the oceanic ages, enormous layers of fossil-free stratified stone
}were deposited on this ancient ocean bottom. (Limestone can form as a result
}of chemical precipitation; not all of the older limestone was produced by
}marine-life deposition.) In none of these ancient rock formations will there
}be found evidences of life; they contain no fossils unless, by some chance,
}later deposits of the water ages have become mixed with these older prelife
}layers.
}
}姫aper 057 [Pg 661]
Actually, that's a mighty poor aproximation of real geology even by 1950's
standards. Try looking at some real geology.
Thomas Paine
>>flat
>>out lying.
>>
>>In your case I would tend to discount the lying, since I just don't think
>>that
>>the Urantia book would inspire a "lying for Jesus" syndrome. I rather suspect
>>
>>a combination of the first and second reasons. I am sorry for you that the
>>
>>evidence falsifies some of the "revealed wisdom" in your religious texts,
>>but
>>that's the problem with the real world, it simply doesn't care much one
>>way or
>>the other about our beliefs, it simply is.
>
>Perhaps you will find in your own lifetime that your "Theory" of 3 billion y.o.
>life is quite farfetched.
Or, perhaps, in your lifetime you'll discover what the majority of people
already know. Urantia is science fiction.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
On 28 Oct 1998 20:39:29 -0500 abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
>electromagnetic
>>energy
>>From: reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au (Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue)
>>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
>>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
>>
>>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
>>
>>On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Absonite wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks
>>of
>>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>
> The
>>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
>
>>
>>Cheers! Ian
>
>Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
Jack King and I disagree on the interpretation of the 3.8 Gyr
evidence, but we are both in agreement that by 3.5 Gyr (Ur-Pb Zircon
ages) bacteria (and possibly photosynthesis) were firmly established.
At 3.5 Gyr there are stromatolites (bacterial colonies), clear
microfossils and C12/C13 excess to show biological carbon fixation. O2
photosynthesis was well established by 2.0 Gyr (as are the bacteria,
with excellent fossils at 2.75 Gyr amd 2.0 Gyr, especilally the
Gunflint chert). The first eucaryotic microfossils are found around
1.5 Gyr, and at 570 Myr (Ur-Pb dating) there are sponges and embryos
of other animals.
These dates have been established by different groups using standard
methodology, in the case of the Gunflint chert, several times. Are you
saying _ALL_ of these groups have got it wrong.
The fossil animal burrows have been dated at around 1.0 Gyr, but may
be likely to be "only" 600 Myr.
References:
Schopf, W, Science 1993, 260,640-646
Mojzsis SJ et al, Nature, 1996, 384, 55-59
Eiler & Mojzsis, Nature, 1997, 386, 665
Xiao, S et al., Science, 1998, 391, 553-558
See also Maynard Smith & Szathmary, "The Major Transitions in
Evolution" WH Freeman, 1995, ISBN 0-7167-4525-9
Cheers! Ian #3 Most verbose poster on TO for September.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
On 28 Oct 1998 20:32:42 -0500 abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
>electromagnetic
>>energy
>>From: Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 5:38 PM
>>Message-id: <36363F17...@baynetworks.com>
>>
>>Absonite wrote:
>>>
>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks
>>of
>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>>> So far the date 550 Mya as the beginning of life holds up quite nicely.
>>
>>The first multicellular eukaryots date back circa 1 b.y.a. The
>>first primative bacteria date to circa 3.8 b.y.a. Perhaps you
>>are you thinking of the first rapid radiation of invertibrates
>>during the early Cambrian period.
>>--
>> Jack King
>> jack...@baynetworks.com
>> http://www.bit-net.com/~jackking/
>
>Jack,
>Nothing alive dates back beyond 550 Mya on this planet. Nothing. Try
>recalibrating your instruments.
The dates of bacterial fossils at 3.5, 2.75, and 2.0 Gyr have been
done using standard Uranium Lead dating, and the 2.0 Gyr date
confirmed by more than one group. The dates might be out a little bit
(by about 10 Myr or so), but not by 2.0 Gyr or more.
Similarly, the dates of the first eucaryotes (1.5 Gyr), and the
sponges (570 Myr) aren't going to be out by that much.
However, the 550 Myr date is commonly given as the time of the
Cambrian Explosion, as Jack said.
Cheers! Ian
Andrew MacRae
|>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
|electromagnetic
|>energy
O'Donohue)
|>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
|>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
|>
|>
|>wrote:
|>
|>>>
|>>>
|>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
|>>> tracks of possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've
|>>> ever seen.
|
|>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
|
|>
|>Cheers! Ian
|
|Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
and from another post, article
<19981028204108...@ng21.aol.com>:
|Nothing alive dates back beyond 550 Mya on this planet. Nothing. Try
|recalibrating your instruments.
I am trying to understand what, exactly, you are claiming:
1) There is no fossil life known that is older than 550 million years ago,
and all the fossils thought to be older than that are actually younger
(i.e. the conventional geological time scale is wrong).
2) There is no fossil life known from rocks older than those of the
Cambrian Period, which is what corresponds to 550 million years ago in the
conventional geological time scale.
3) There is no fossil *animal* life known older than 550 million years
ago.
4) There is no fossil *animal* life known from rocks older than those of
the Cambrian Period.
There are basically two issues that confuse me: what you mean by
"life" (multicellular animals only, or anything?), and what you mean by
"550 million years ago" (using the current geological time scale, or
not?). Please choose, or clarify with additional possibilities I have not
thought of.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Chris Nedin
>
>>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>>From: Chris Nedin <cne...@ediacara.org>
>>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:52 PM
>>Message-id: <716tc2$f...@drn.newsguy.com>
>>
>>In article <slrn73ac5k...@darwin.ediacara.org>, gr...@ediacara.org
>>says...
[deleted]
>>>Actually, the strata they are found in are dated from 620 Mya over 70 Mya
>>>to 550 Mya. They are not one single level. I'd ask Chris Nedin to speak
>>>on this. Or Andrew Macrae.
>>
>>You rang?
>>
>>The Ediacara fauna are found on a number of continents and span an interval
>>of time from approx. 565 Mya (+-) to 540 mya (+-)(Cambrian-Precambrian
>>boundary).
>>
>>In some areas they occur dispersed in a section some kilometres in thickness
>>(such as Newfoundland). The oldest examples of a diverse fauna comes from
>>North Carolina where the fauna (containing the form _Pteridinium_) has been
>>dated at approx 565 mya by U-Pd dating of an immediately underlying tuff. If
>>you accept a more simple fauna (mainly discs) then you can push the oldest
>>faunas back to approx 600 mya (in northwestern Canada (e.g. Narbonne 1998).
[deleted]
>>>>550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In
>>>>cooperation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized
>>>>and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in
>>>>the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from
>>>>extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the
>>>>Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and
>>>>simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations
>>>>have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or
>>>>Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.
>>
>>Umm, there is fossil evidence for life (as separate from metazoan or animal
>>life) being here for 3 billion years, so do you mean animal life or life
>>in
>>general?
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>Narbonne, G. M. (1998) The Ediacaran biota: A terminal Neoproterozoic
>experiment
>>in the evolution of life. GSA Today, 8(2): 1-6.
>
>O.K Chris,
>Nice that you joined us.
>"The Ediacara fauna are found on a number of continents and span an intervalof
>>time from approx. 565 Mya (+-) to 540 mya (+-)(Cambrian-Precambrian boundary).
>
>Close enough to the Urantia book 550 Mya and probably closer to 540 giving it
>10 to develop.
Nope, the fauna were fully developed at approx. 565 mya. Therefor it must
have developed (or 'seeded, whatever) earlier than 565 mya. If you include
the discs from Canada as a simpler fauna then the age goes back to 600 mya.
[deleted]
>"Umm, there is fossil evidence for life (as separate from metazoan or animal
>life) being here for 3 billion years, so do you mean animal life or life in
>general?"
>
>No life. There is no evidence for any life or fossils over 550 Mya or will
>there ever be any evidence simply because there was none b4 550Mya. Not on
>this planet anyway.
Just a few pieces of evidence for life or fossils over 550 mya:
Haines, P.W. (1997) Tool marks from ca. 1750 Ma, northern Australia; evidence
for large drifting algal filaments? Geology, 25(3): 235-238.
Kah, L.C. & Knoll, A.H. (1996) Microbenthic distribution of Proterozoic tidal
flats; environmental and taphonomic considerations. Geology, 24(1): 79-82.
Abstract: Silicified carbonates of the late Mesoproterozoic [2000 - 1000 mya]
to early Neoproterozoic Society Cliffs Formation, Baffin Island, contain
distinctive microfabrics and microbenthic assemblages whose paleoenvironmental
distribution within the formation parallels the distribution of these elements
through Proterozoic time. . .
Mojzsis, S.J.; Arrhenius, G.; McKeegan, K.D.; Harrison, T.M.; Nutman, A.P. &
Friend, C.R.L. (1996) Evidence for life on Earth before 3,800 million years
ago. Nature, 384: 55-59.
Hofmann, H.J. & Rainbird, R.H. (1995) Carbonaceous megafossils from the
Neoproterozoic Shaler Supergroup [c. 1000 mya] of Arctic Canada.
Palaeontology, 37(4): 721-731.
Du-Rulin; Wang-Qizheng; Tian-Lifu (1995) Catalogue of algal megafossils from
the Proterozoic of China. Precambrian Research, 73(1-4): 291-298.
Abstract: The 23 genera and 39 species of macroalgal fossils reported from
the Proterozoic of China are catalogued, some are illustrated, their
distribution is documented, and a list of all major references is provided.
Seven assemblages can be distinguished, ranging in age from Palaeoproterozoic
[2500-2000 mya] to Neoproterozoic. Such fossils are known from all successions
that have been thoroughly examined.
Kumar,S. (1995) Megafossils from the Mesoproterozoic Rohtas Formation (the
Vindhyan Supergroup), Katni area, central India. Precambrian Research,
72(34): 171-184.
Zhu-Shixing & Chen-Huineng (1995) Megascopic multicellular organisms from the
1700-million-year-old Tuanshanzi Formation in the Jixian area, North China.
Science. 270; 5236, Pages 620-622. 1995.
See also:
Schopf, J.W. (ed) (1983) Earth's Earliest Biosphere : Its Origin
and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Prinston. 543p.
Schopf, J.W. & Klein, C. (eds.)(1992) The Proterozoic Biosphere:
A Multidisciplinary Study. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1348p.
Chris Nedin
Chris Nedin
>
[deleted]
>
>900,000,000 years ago
>The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface cooling
>alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the surface
>of the world anything of this original planetary crust. It has all been mixed
>up too many times with extruding lavas of deep origins and admixed with
>subsequent deposits of the early world-wide ocean.
Ummmm . . .
Nutman, A.P.; Mojzsis, S.J. & Friend, C.R.L. (1997) Recognition of > or =
3850 Ma water-lain sediments in West Greenland and their significance for
the early Archaean Earth. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61(12): 2475-2484.
Chris
Absonite
>Message-id: <71b7gj$9...@drn.newsguy.com>
Thanks Chris,
I'll look at the refs.
Obviously, either the dating is wrong or the Ub is wrong. I'll think you'll
find the method of dating is suspect.
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy>Date: Thu, Oct 29, 1998 9:16 AM
>Message-id: <3646d67a...@news.mira.net.au>
>
>G'Day All
>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
>
>
>>electromagnetic
>>>energy
>>>From: reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au (Ian Musgrave & Peta
O'Donohue)
>>>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
>>>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
>>>
>>>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
>>>
>>>On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Absonite wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
>tracks
>>>of
>>>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>>
>> The
>>>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
>>
>>>
>>>Cheers! Ian
>>
>>Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
>
>evidence, but we are both in agreement that by 3.5 Gyr (Ur-Pb Zircon
>ages) bacteria (and possibly photosynthesis) were firmly established.
>At 3.5 Gyr there are stromatolites (bacterial colonies), clear
>microfossils and C12/C13 excess to show biological carbon fixation. O2
>photosynthesis was well established by 2.0 Gyr (as are the bacteria,
>with excellent fossils at 2.75 Gyr amd 2.0 Gyr, especilally the
>Gunflint chert). The first eucaryotic microfossils are found around
>1.5 Gyr, and at 570 Myr (Ur-Pb dating) there are sponges and embryos
>of other animals.
>
>These dates have been established by different groups using standard
>methodology, in the case of the Gunflint chert, several times. Are you
>saying _ALL_ of these groups have got it wrong.
Most likely... (;
Thanks though, I will look at this data as well as Chris's which you were both
kind enough to supply, as if I will even be able to understand it, but
somethings definitely not kosher and I believe it's the so-called scientific
method, it certainly won't be the first time these types of theorys were in
error.
>
>The fossil animal burrows have been dated at around 1.0 Gyr, but may
>be likely to be "only" 600 Myr.
>
>References:
>Schopf, W, Science 1993, 260,640-646
>Mojzsis SJ et al, Nature, 1996, 384, 55-59
>Eiler & Mojzsis, Nature, 1997, 386, 665
>Xiao, S et al., Science, 1998, 391, 553-558
>See also Maynard Smith & Szathmary, "The Major Transitions in
>Evolution" WH Freeman, 1995, ISBN 0-7167-4525-9
>
>Cheers! Ian #3 Most verbose poster on TO for September.
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy
>Date: Thu, Oct 29, 1998 9:42 AM
>Message-id: <719rbs$7s6$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>|electromagnetic
>|>energy
>|>From: reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au (Ian Musgrave & Peta
>O'Donohue)
>|>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
>|>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
>|>
>|>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
>|>
>|>On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>|>wrote:
>|>
>|>>Absonite wrote:
>|>>>
>|>>>
>|>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
>|>>> tracks of possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've
>|>>> ever seen.
>|
>|>The
>|>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
>|
>|>
>|>Cheers! Ian
>|
>|Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
>
><19981028204108...@ng21.aol.com>:
>
>|Nothing alive dates back beyond 550 Mya on this planet. Nothing. Try
>|recalibrating your instruments.
>
>
>
> I am trying to understand what, exactly, you are claiming:
>
>1) There is no fossil life known that is older than 550 million years ago,
>
>and all the fossils thought to be older than that are actually younger
>
>(i.e. the conventional geological time scale is wrong).
>2) There is no fossil life known from rocks older than those of the
>Cambrian Period, which is what corresponds to 550 million years ago in the
>
>conventional geological time scale.
>3) There is no fossil *animal* life known older than 550 million years
>
>ago.
>4) There is no fossil *animal* life known from rocks older than those of
>
>the Cambrian Period.
>
> There are basically two issues that confuse me: what you mean by
>"life" (multicellular animals only, or anything?), and what you mean by
>
>"550 million years ago" (using the current geological time scale, or
>not?). Please choose, or clarify with additional possibilities I have not
>
>thought of.
>
> -Andrew
> mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
3) There is no fossil *animal* life known older than 550 million years
ago.
Thanks for the reply Andrew. My thoughts are that the dating method is in
error, due to either the "process" or the reasoning involved.
If the "Life-Carrier" statement is correct in the Ub, and I believe it is,
then what could possibly account for the discrepency in life "supposedly" being
found older than that which was originally initiated? Ther are probably many
reasons besides the answer that the "life Carrier" statement is incorrect.
Absonite
>From: Chris Nedin <cne...@ediacara.org>
>Date: Fri, Oct 30, 1998 12:12 AM
>Message-id: <71b71e$8...@drn.newsguy.com>
>
>In article <19981028215935...@ng21.aol.com>,
abso...@aol.comNoBull
>says...
>>
>[deleted]
>>
>>900,000,000 years ago
>>The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface
>cooling
>>alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the surface
>>of the world anything of this original planetary crust. It has all been
>mixed
>>up too many times with extruding lavas of deep origins and admixed with
>>subsequent deposits of the early world-wide ocean.
>
>Ummmm . . .
>
>Nutman, A.P.; Mojzsis, S.J. & Friend, C.R.L. (1997) Recognition of > or
>=
>3850 Ma water-lain sediments in West Greenland and their significance for
>
>the early Archaean Earth. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61(12): 2475-2484.
>
>
>Chris
>
>| | "How can Nedin be trusted?" |
>| ne...@ediacara.org | C Wieland Director, |
>| *my views only* | Creation Research Foundation, |
>| | Queensland, Australia. |
>---------- http://members.tripod.com/~Cambrian/index.html ----------
Thanks Chris,
you're certainly not making this easy for me are you?
Absonite
********
*********
Chris, Apparently this is what is causing all the confusion in the dating of
these so-called fossils of over 550 mya. I think the "Life-Carrier" makes it
quite clear what the problem is. Please notice the ref to Newfoundland in the
text.
A.
Newfoundland
姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred.
This metamorphosis took place in the shallow waters of the sheltered tropic
bays and lagoons of the extensive shore lines of the separating continents. And
this development, all of which was inherent in the original life patterns, came
about gradually. There were many transitional stages between the early
primitive vegetable forms of life and the later well-defined animal organisms.
Even today the transition slime molds persist, and they can hardly be
classified either as plants or as animals.
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.
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.
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.
At the proper degree of saltiness in the oceans animal life evolved, and it was
comparatively simple to allow the briny waters to circulate through the animal
bodies of marine life. But when the oceans were contracted and the percentage
of salt was greatly increased, these same animals evolved the ability to reduce
the saltiness of their body fluids just as those organisms which learned to
live in fresh water acquired the ability to maintain the proper degree of
sodium chloride in their body fluids by ingenious techniques of salt
conservation.
Study of the rock-embraced fossils of marine life reveals the early adjustment
struggles of these primitive organisms. Plants and animals never cease to make
these adjustment experiments. Ever the environment is changing, and always are
living organisms striving to accommodate themselves to these neverending
fluctuations.
The physiologic equipment and the anatomic structure of all new orders of life
are in response to the action of physical law, but the subsequent endowment of
mind is a bestowal of the adjutant mind-spirits in accordance with innate brain
capacity. Mind, while not a physical evolution, is wholly dependent on the
brain capacity afforded by purely physical and evolutionary developments.
Through almost endless cycles of gains and losses, adjustments and
readjustments, all living organisms swing back and forth from age to age. Those
that attain cosmic unity persist, while those that fall short of this goal
cease to exist.
7. THE GEOLOGIC HISTORY BOOK
The vast group of rock systems which constituted the outer crust of the world
during the life-dawn or Proterozoic era does not now appear at many points on
the earth's surface. And when it does emerge from below all the accumulations
of subsequent ages, there will be found only the fossil remains of vegetable
and early primitive animal life. Some of these older water-deposited rocks are
commingled with subsequent layers, and sometimes they yield fossil remains of
some of the earlier forms of vegetable life, while on the topmost layers
occasionally may be found some of the more primitive forms of the early
marine-animal organisms. In many places these oldest stratified rock layers,
bearing the fossils of the early marine life, both animal and vegetable, may be
found directly on top of the older undifferentiated stone.
Fossils of this era yield algae, corallike plants, primitive Protozoa, and
spongelike transition organisms. But the absence of such fossils in the early
rock layers does not necessarily prove that living things were not elsewhere in
existence at the time of their deposition. Life was sparse throughout these
early times and only slowly made its way over the face of the earth.
The rocks of this olden age are now at the earth's surface, or very near the
surface, over about one eighth of the present land area. The average thickness
of this transition stone, the oldest stratified rock layers, is about one and
one-half miles. At some points these ancient rock systems are as much as four
miles thick, but many of the layers which have been ascribed to this era belong
to later periods.
In North America this ancient and primitive fossil-bearing stone layer comes to
the surface over the eastern, central, and northern regions of Canada. There is
also an intermittent east-west ridge of this rock which extends from
Pennsylvania and the ancient Adirondack Mountains on west through Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Other ridges run from Newfoundland to Alabama and
from Alaska to Mexico.
The rocks of this era are exposed here and there all over the world, but none
are so easy of interpretation as those about Lake Superior and in the Grand
Canyon of the Colorado River, where these primitive fossil-bearing rocks,
existing in several layers, testify to the upheavals and surface fluctuations
of those faraway times.
This stone layer, the oldest fossil-bearing stratum in the crust of the earth,
has been crumpled, folded, and grotesquely twisted as a result of the upheavals
of earthquakes and the early volcanoes. The lava flows of this age brought much
iron, copper, and lead up near the planetary surface.
There are few places on the earth where such activities are more graphically
shown than in the St. Croix valley of Wisconsin. In this region there occurred
one hundred and twenty-seven successive lava flows on land with succeeding
water submergence and consequent rock deposition. Although much of the upper
rock sedimentation and intermittent lava flow is absent today, and though the
bottom of this system is buried deep in the earth, nevertheless, about
sixty-five or seventy of these stratified records of past ages are now exposed
to view.
In these early ages when much land was near sea level, there occurred many
successive submergences and emergences. The earth's crust was just entering
upon its later period of comparative stabilization. The undulations, rises and
dips, of the earlier continental drift contributed to the frequency of the
periodic submergence of the great land masses.
During these times of primitive marine life, extensive areas of the continental
shores sank beneath the seas from a few feet to half a mile. Much of the older
sandstone and conglomerates represents the sedimentary accumulations of these
ancient shores. The sedimentary rocks belonging to this early stratification
rest directly upon those layers which date back far beyond the origin of life,
back to the early appearance of the world-wide ocean.
Some of the upper layers of these transition rock deposits contain small
amounts of shale or slate of dark colors, indicating the presence of organic
carbon and testifying to the existence of the ancestors of those forms of plant
life which overran the earth during the succeeding Carboniferous or coal age.
Much of the copper in these rock layers results from water deposition. Some is
found in the cracks of the older rocks and is the concentrate of the sluggish
swamp water of some ancient sheltered shore line. The iron mines of North
America and Europe are located in deposits and extrusions lying partly in the
older unstratified rocks and partly in these later stratified rocks of the
transition periods of life formation.
This era witnesses the spread of life throughout the waters of the world;
marine life has become well established on Urantia. The bottoms of the shallow
and extensive inland seas are being gradually overrun by a profuse and
luxuriant growth of vegetation, while the shore-line waters are swarming with
the simple forms of animal life.
All of this story is graphically told within the fossil pages of the vast
"stone book" of world record. And the pages of this gigantic biogeologic record
unfailingly tell the truth if you but acquire skill in their interpretation.
Many of these ancient sea beds are now elevated high upon land, and their
deposits of age upon age tell the story of the life struggles of those early
days. It is literally true, as your poet has said, "The dust we tread upon was
once alive."
[Presented by a member of the Urantia Life Carrier Corps now resident on the
planet.]
Urantia book 1934 c1955
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy
>From: abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite)
>Date: Fri, Oct 30, 1998 3:01 AM
>Message-id: <19981030020945...@ng-fc2.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
>electromagnetic
>>energy
>>From: mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca (Andrew MacRae)
>>Date: Thu, Oct 29, 1998 9:42 AM
>>Message-id: <719rbs$7s6$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>>
>>In article <19981028204754...@ng21.aol.com>
>>abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) writes:
>>|electromagnetic
>>|>energy
Newfoundland
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy
>From: reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au (Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue)
>Message-id: <3645d5f5...@news.mira.net.au>
>
>G'Day All
>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
>
>
>>electromagnetic
>>>energy
>>>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 5:38 PM
>>>Message-id: <36363F17...@baynetworks.com>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
>tracks
>>>of
>>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>>>
>>>The first multicellular eukaryots date back circa 1 b.y.a. The
>>>first primative bacteria date to circa 3.8 b.y.a. Perhaps you
>>>are you thinking of the first rapid radiation of invertibrates
>>>during the early Cambrian period.
>>>--
>>> Jack King
>>> jack...@baynetworks.com
>>> http://www.bit-net.com/~jackking/
>>
>>Jack,
>>recalibrating your instruments.
>
>done using standard Uranium Lead dating, and the 2.0 Gyr date
>confirmed by more than one group. The dates might be out a little bit
>(by about 10 Myr or so), but not by 2.0 Gyr or more.
>
>Similarly, the dates of the first eucaryotes (1.5 Gyr), and the
>sponges (570 Myr) aren't going to be out by that much.
>
>However, the 550 Myr date is commonly given as the time of the
>Cambrian Explosion, as Jack said.
>
>Cheers! Ian
>=========================================================
NO LIFE OVER 550 Mya. NONE !!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps this correction in such a gross scientific error deserves a Nobel
Prize. (;
Absonite
>From: ju...@trash.garbage (Steve Henderson)
>Date: Thu, Oct 29, 1998 12:18 AM
>Message-id: <718qs1$cg3$2...@news.ncal.verio.com>
>
>In article <718ocl$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Craig Franck <clfr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>}abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
>}
>of
>}>life 3 billion ya.
>}
>}there is simply because the first forms of life were such that
>}they didn't leave much in the way of fossil records. It's almost
>}certain that life existed on this planet at a time previous to our
>}ability to demonstrate it's existence.
>}
>Yep. My recollection, however, is that you have to get back to past 3 billion
>
>years before the evidence becomes really fuzzy and there is some evidence
>of
>live back to at least 3.8 billion years ago.
No evidence ...... NONE....... ZERO......
Please note what the scientific problem is...
•Paper 058 [Pg 669]
Absonite
>From: ju...@trash.garbage (Steve Henderson)
>Message-id: <718qod$cg3$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>
>
>In article <19981028215935...@ng21.aol.com>,
> abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
>}>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>}>From: ju...@trash.garbage (Steve Henderson)
>}> abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
>}>}>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>}>}>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:52 PM
>}>}>Message-id: <716tc2$f...@drn.newsguy.com>
>
>}>Stuff snipped for bandwidth
>
>}>}>animal life) being here for 3 billion years, so do you mean animal life
>or
>}>}>life in general?"
>}>}
>}>}No life. There is no evidence for any life or fossils over 550 Mya or
>}>}will there ever be any evidence simply because there was none b4 550Mya.
>
>}>}Not on this planet anyway.
>}>
>}>roughly 3 billion years. To say there is none indicates either pretty
>
>}>substantial ignorance of the history of life on earth or an inability
>to
>}>accept any evidence that counters your religious beliefs.
>}
>life
>be
>}wrong and the dating can be wrong or perhaps some deeper lava flows were
>
>}mixed with younger fossils.
>
>
>seems pretty solid that the surface had stabilized by somewhere around 4
>
>billion years ago. Basically, however, all the evidence shows pretty much
>the
>same thing, life starting early and remaining at the bacterial level for
>a
>very long period of time. Opposing this view is basically your belief in
>the
>Urantia book, which appears to be based on layman science from the 1950's
>
>dressed up with fancy words. I will go with the evidence as, I suspect,
>will
>pretty much anyone that isn't blinded by the religious will to believe that
>
>you show.
>
>}>
>}>In your case I would tend to discount the lying, since I just don't think
>}>that the Urantia book would inspire a "lying for Jesus" syndrome. I rather
>
>}>suspect a combination of the first and second reasons. I am sorry for
>you
>}>that the evidence falsifies some of the "revealed wisdom" in your religious
>
>}>texts, but that's the problem with the real world, it simply doesn't
>care
>}>much one way or the other about our beliefs, it simply is.
>}
>}Perhaps you will find in your own lifetime that your "Theory" of 3 billion
>
>}y.o. life is quite farfetched.
>
>
>different I'm open to change. Trust me, however, the Urantia book is not
>
>evidence.
******* Trust me, it IS......*********
姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
450,000,000
snip....
Absonite
>>
>[deleted]
>>
>>900,000,000 years ago
>>The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface
>cooling
>>alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the surface
>>of the world anything of this original planetary crust. It has all been
>mixed
>>up too many times with extruding lavas of deep origins and admixed with
>>subsequent deposits of the early world-wide ocean.
>
>Ummmm . . .
>
>Nutman, A.P.; Mojzsis, S.J. & Friend, C.R.L. (1997) Recognition of > or
>=
>3850 Ma water-lain sediments in West Greenland and their significance for
>
>the early Archaean Earth. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61(12): 2475-2484.
>
>
>Chris
Hmmmmmmm
NUTMAN & friend, tooooooo funny (;
姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred.
7. THE GEOLOGIC HISTORY BOOK
Urantia book 1934 c1955
Andrew MacRae
abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) writes:
|>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
|electromagnetic
|>energy
|>From: mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca (Andrew MacRae)
|>Date: Thu, Oct 29, 1998 9:42 AM
|>Message-id: <719rbs$7s6$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>
|>
|>In article <19981028204754...@ng21.aol.com>
|>abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) writes:
|>|electromagnetic
|>|>energy|>|>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
|>|>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
|>|>
|>|>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
|>|>wrote:
|>|>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
|>|>>> tracks of possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've
|>|>>> ever seen.
|>|
|>|>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
|>|Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
|>
|>and from another post, article
|><19981028204108...@ng21.aol.com>:
|>
|>|recalibrating your instruments.
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>1) There is no fossil life known that is older than 550 million years
|>ago, and all the fossils thought to be older than that are actually
|>younger (i.e. the conventional geological time scale is wrong).
|>2) There is no fossil life known from rocks older than those of the
|>Cambrian Period, which is what corresponds to 550 million years ago in
|>3) There is no fossil *animal* life known older than 550 million years
|>ago.
|>4) There is no fossil *animal* life known from rocks older than those of
|>the Cambrian Period.
|>
|> There are basically two issues that confuse me: what you mean by
|>"life" (multicellular animals only, or anything?), and what you mean by
|>
|>"550 million years ago" (using the current geological time scale, or
|>not?). Please choose, or clarify with additional possibilities I have
|>not thought of.
|
|3) There is no fossil *animal* life known older than 550 million years
|ago.
Okay, that makes *alot* more sense, and explains why people were
confused by your statements, because for most people, "life" is not the
same as "animal life", and life is known from much longer ago than 550 Ma
in the conventional time scale. It could be debated whether "animal"
means multicellular animal, or if some unicellular heterotrophic
eukaryotes would qualify, but I am assuming you mean multicellular animals
(i.e. metazoans), which is the most common usage. However, animal life by
that usage *is* known from older than 550 Ma, based on the current
calibration of the geological time scale. Ediacaran remains of
multicellular animals may go back as far as 600 million years, but what is
a few tens of millions of years among friends? :-) Your argument is
basically about a recalibration of the time scale of 10% or so (excepting
the possibility the even older trace fossils are actually trace fossils
from that old), which is not utterly ridiculous, although it is currently
scientifically unsupportable, particularly with the increasing precision
of radiometric dates in this interval.
One problem may remain. If, instead, your source implies that
there are no multicellular animals known from rocks pre-dating the
Cambrian Period, which was thought to be true early in this century and
before (until about the 1950s, when Ediacaran fossils were found), then it
is clearly wrong, and is only reflecting vintage, inaccurate information
that has since been superceded. It may not be possible to determine
whether this is a possibility from the information provided. That is the
problem with providing numerical calibrations for age instead of relative
time -- if the calibration changes, it makes reliable description of the
successional changes difficult (which may not change at all even if the
numbers do).
For example, the base of the Cambrian was recently revised upwards
from about 570 million years ago to about 545 million years ago, possibly
even younger. This does not change the order of appearance of the fossils
in that interval, but if someone sloppily started mixing-and-matching
information from the old calibration versus the newer one, it could get
quite confusing. For example, if you used nubers from the old
calibration, you could have the Burgess Shale of the Middle Cambrian
(starting about 540 million years ago) seemingly appearing at the start of
the Cambrian or even before, if you used the new estimates for the base of
the Cambrian (about 545). This is totally non-sensical, until you
realize that the dates for the top of the Cambrian and for intervals
within it have *also* been revised to younger dates (the top of the
Cambrian was previously estimated at about 510, now it is thought to be
about 500 or 495 million years, and the Early Cambrian is most of the
Cambrian period, moving the start of the Middle Cambrian up to about 509
or 518 million years ago, depending upon which time scale you accept).
The unwary might mix-and-match data from different sources -- some up to
date, some not -- and mistakenly deduce that the Early Cambrian was
vanishingly short.
|Thanks for the reply Andrew. My thoughts are that the dating method is
|in error, due to either the "process" or the reasoning involved.
|
|If the "Life-Carrier" statement is correct in the Ub, and I believe it
|is, then what could possibly account for the discrepency in life
|"supposedly" being found older than that which was originally initiated?
|Ther are probably many
|reasons besides the answer that the "life Carrier" statement is
|incorrect.
Including the possibility that it was only reflecting human
knowledge of the time. I know you said that you believe it, but other
people may consider this a realistic possibility too.
Regardless, if you want to avoid confusion, you really should
qualify your statements about "no life before 550 million years", which is
inaccurate as stated, and may still be wrong, even if you include the
qualifier "animal life", based upon the currently available data (even
excluding the more recent trace fossil discovery, which I am skeptical of
anyway).
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
David Iain Greig
Near as I can figure, the 'transition' to animal life from plant life
was what happened roughly 500 Mya, according to Urantians. But I
hadn't seen anything in any of Absonite's quotings that gave a specific
date for the origin of plant life itself.
Since we have oodles of stromatolite fossils that are hundreds of millions
of years older than 500 Mya, I can't believe the Urantians are that
out of it to think they're all fakes. I can't believe Absonite will assert
that all radioactive dating is fake or some such.
Maybe if we could get a Urantian with a firmer grasp on science to post
here, we might get clearer answers without having massive regurgiposts
of largely irrelevant Urantian text.
But maybe there aren't any such Urantians?
--D.
David Iain Greig
>>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>>From: Chris Nedin <cne...@ediacara.org>
>>Date: Fri, Oct 30, 1998 12:12 AM
>>Message-id: <71b71e$8...@drn.newsguy.com>
>>
>>In article <19981028215935...@ng21.aol.com>,
>abso...@aol.comNoBull
>>says...
>>>
>>[deleted]
>>>
>>the early Archaean Earth. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61(12): 2475-2484.
>>
>you're certainly not making this easy for me are you?
>
It's not Chris' fault if geleogists know more about the Earth than
the people who wrote the Urantia book earlier this century.
I mean, when you have to tell me that nuclear physics, geology,
molecular genetics, paleontology, and more fields of science
have gotten it ALL wrong, just to save your pet theory, then
I think it's game over for your pet theory.
--D.
David Iain Greig
>>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
>electromagnetic
>>energy
>>From: reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au (Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue)
>>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
>>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
>>
>>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
>>
>>On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Absonite wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible tracks
>>of
>>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>
> The
>>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
>
>>
>
>Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
>
You know, when you write like this, we can all see you with your fingers
firmly jammed in your ears, shouting 'I'm NOT listening! LA LA LA!' when
we keep showing you evidence the Urantia book is wrong in detail.
You are clearly not interested in learning anything that might contradict
your beliefs. Please go away. This newgroup is not for you.
--D.
David Iain Greig
>>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
>electromagnetic
>>energy
>>From: reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au (Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue)
>>
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
>>>electromagnetic
>>>>energy
>>>>From: reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au (Ian Musgrave & Peta
>O'Donohue)
>>>>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
>>>>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
>>>>
>>>>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
>>>>
>>>>On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Absonite wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
>>tracks
>>>>of
>>>>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>>>
>>> The
>>>>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cheers! Ian
>>>
>>>Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
>>
>>evidence, but we are both in agreement that by 3.5 Gyr (Ur-Pb Zircon
>>ages) bacteria (and possibly photosynthesis) were firmly established.
>>At 3.5 Gyr there are stromatolites (bacterial colonies), clear
>>microfossils and C12/C13 excess to show biological carbon fixation. O2
>>photosynthesis was well established by 2.0 Gyr (as are the bacteria,
>>with excellent fossils at 2.75 Gyr amd 2.0 Gyr, especilally the
>>Gunflint chert). The first eucaryotic microfossils are found around
>>1.5 Gyr, and at 570 Myr (Ur-Pb dating) there are sponges and embryos
>>of other animals.
>>
>>These dates have been established by different groups using standard
>>methodology, in the case of the Gunflint chert, several times. Are you
>>saying _ALL_ of these groups have got it wrong.
>
>
>Most likely... (;
>Thanks though, I will look at this data as well as Chris's which you were both
>kind enough to supply, as if I will even be able to understand it, but
>somethings definitely not kosher and I believe it's the so-called scientific
>method, it certainly won't be the first time these types of theorys were in
>error.
As opposed to religions like Urantia, which have never, ever been fakes.
In fact, *all* religions are 100% true.
--D.
David Iain Greig
>
>Jack,
>Nothing alive dates back beyond 550 Mya on this planet. Nothing. Try
>recalibrating your instruments.
>
You mean, try making the half-life of Uranium shorter? Tell it to the atoms.
Honus
> Chris, Apparently this is what is causing all the confusion in the dating of
> these so-called fossils of over 550 mya. I think the "Life-Carrier" makes it
> quite clear what the problem is. Please notice the ref to Newfoundland in the
> text.
>
> A.
>
> Newfoundland
>
> 姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
>
> 6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
>
> 450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred.
<Big snip>
> Urantia book 1934 c1955
Well...he's still at it. This is post #1 of "The Transition Period." I
wonder how many more will show up?
--
Death to Spammers.
Remove the HORMEL anti-spam device from my address to reply by e-mail.
Honus
> No evidence ...... NONE....... ZERO......
>
> Please note what the scientific problem is...
>
> 姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
>
> 6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
>
> 450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred.
<big snip>
> Urantia book 1934 c1955
What do you know? This is post #2 of "The transition Period." Will there
be more copies of the same chapter posted today? Stay tuned!
Honus
> NUTMAN & friend, tooooooo funny (;
>
> 姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
>
> 6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
>
> 450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred.
<big snip>
> Urantia book 1934 c1955
Well, lookee here!
Number 3!!
The same chapter, over and over.
You need a new hobby, Absonite.
Honus
> 姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
>
> 6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
>
> 450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred.
<Big Snip>
> Urantia book 1934 c1955
Holy Cow, here it is again! Chapter Six, in all of its glory, posted
here in t.o. for the FOURTH time today! Don't you have a job? Or any
productive hobbies?
Honus
> NO LIFE OVER 550 Mya. NONE !!!!!!!!!!
>
> Perhaps this correction in such a gross scientific error deserves a Nobel
> Prize. (;
>
> 姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
>
> 6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
>
> 450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred.
<big snip>
> Urantia book 1934 c1955
The FIFTH posting of the same old Chapter 6, and all in the same
morning! I've only been here at my desk for 15 minutes or so, and we're
up to the FIFTH time you've posted the same thing! And you wonder why I
badger you.
Ken Cox
> >Chris Nedin wrote:
> >> abso...@aol.comNoBull says...
> >>900,000,000 years ago
> >>The early crust of the earth was in a state of continual flux. Surface cooling
> >>alternated with immense lava flows. Nowhere can there be found on the surface
> >>of the world anything of this original planetary crust.
> >Nutman, A.P.; Mojzsis, S.J. & Friend, C.R.L. (1997) Recognition of > or =
> >3850 Ma water-lain sediments in West Greenland and their significance for
> >the early Archaean Earth. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61(12): 2475-2484.
> Hmmmmmmm
> NUTMAN & friend, tooooooo funny (;
Perhaps, but at least it is responsive; unlike, say, making fun
of a person's name, then re-posting the stuff that has just been
shown to be wrong.
Mind you, it's not that surprising that it is wrong; after all,
the fellow who made up the Urantian religion was just using the
science of his day -- or rather, his misunderstandings of it. So
it's only to be expected that more recent discoveries would show
his stuff to be wrong; good heavens, he was writing before plate
tectonics. Actually the fact that most of his claims have been
superseded by later discoveries is just the most obvious proof
that Urantia is just something made up by humans, rather than the
advanced knowledge it is claimed to be.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Splifford
> Absonite wrote:
>
> > 姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
> >
> > 6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
> >
> > 450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred.
>
> <Big Snip>
>
> > Urantia book 1934 c1955
>
> Holy Cow, here it is again! Chapter Six, in all of its glory, posted
> here in t.o. for the FOURTH time today! Don't you have a job? Or any
> productive hobbies?
Would you hire him?
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
dic...@drizzle.com
gr...@ediacara.org wrote:
>
> Maybe if we could get a Urantian with a firmer grasp on science to post
> here, we might get clearer answers without having massive regurgiposts
> of largely irrelevant Urantian text.
>
> But maybe there aren't any such Urantians?
I'm not convinced that you could find a Urantian with a firm grasp
on anything, including there own book. If they had a firm grasp on it
then they could answer the questions without the huge amounts of text
--
Dick
Mark of the Beast Recipient
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dic...@drizzle.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy
>Date: Fri, Oct 30, 1998 11:35 AM
>Message-id: <slrn73jn6q...@darwin.ediacara.org>
>
>Absonite <abso...@aol.comNoBull> wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
>>electromagnetic
>>>energy
>>>From: reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au (Ian Musgrave & Peta
O'Donohue)
>>>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
>>>
>>>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
>>>
>>>On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Absonite wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
>tracks
>>>of
>>>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
>>
>> The
>>>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
>>
>>>
>>>Cheers! Ian
>>
>>Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
>>
>
>firmly jammed in your ears, shouting 'I'm NOT listening! LA LA LA!' when
>we keep showing you evidence the Urantia book is wrong in detail.
>
>You are clearly not interested in learning anything that might contradict
>your beliefs. Please go away. This newgroup is not for you.
>
>--D.
David,
I'm sure you read the post by Andrew MacRae. Obviously you can see that the
dates are changing to come more in line with the Ub. Perhaps all the dates are
not yet in line due to faulty measurements and analysis of the rock as well as
poor equipment. Unless I am reading this incorrectly......
(((the top of the
Cambrian was previously estimated at about 510, now it is thought to be
about 500 or 495 million years, and the Early Cambrian is most of the
Cambrian period, moving the start of the Middle Cambrian up to about 509
or 518 million years ago, depending upon which time scale you accept). ))
I know that Andrew still believes that there is primitive life older than
550myo but that too will be revised in the years to come.
Then David you say that I should leave this group because I have my fingers in
my ears and I am not seeking truth. I think you were the poster of the 1.1
billion yo worms. Even Andrew doesn't believe it as has a recent article
posted today from Nature. Should they leave also because they don't agree with
what you believe?
((( (even excluding the more recent trace fossil discovery, which I am
skeptical of
anyway).-Andrew mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca )))
Subject: Genes twice as old as fossils?
From: bkl...@panspermia.org
Date: Fri, Oct 30, 1998 10:18 AM
Message-id: <71cicc$iut$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Meanwhile, the dating of a fossilized worm track which would have supported
the older divergence times has been challenged. A cover story in the October
2 issue of _Science_ described what the authors argue are fossilized worm
burrows in 1,100,000-year-old sediments (2). If so, this evidence would
support the neo-Darwinian response to the otherwise anomalous molecular clock
data — metazoans must be twice as old as the Cambrian explosion. But a
subsequent story in _Nature_ suggests that the sediments bearing the worm
tracks may be no older than the Cambrian explosion, about 540 million years
ago
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy
>From: mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca (Andrew MacRae)
>Message-id: <71cktp$kui$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>
The dating method is wrong. The rocks which they find the fossils in are older
than the fossils and thank you for the rest of the substantiating information.
Amazing how year after year science becomes more in line with the Urantia
book. Please revise your estimates of life to conform to reality.
Ken Cox
> >Nothing alive dates back beyond 550 Mya on this planet. Nothing. Try
> >recalibrating your instruments.
Sort of the modern equivalent of King Canute. Though as I recall
Canute was showing people that nature didn't really *care* what
a king said.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Steve Henderson
abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
}>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
}electromagnetic
}>energy
Masses of stuff snipped for bandwidth.
}The dating method is wrong. The rocks which they find the fossils in are
}older than the fossils and thank you for the rest of the substantiating
}information.
} Amazing how year after year science becomes more in line with the Urantia
}book. Please revise your estimates of life to conform to reality.
}
Not hardly. I would be interested in any real reasons for why you think the
dating is wrong. Not quotes from your holy book, mind you, but actual
scientific data.
Basically, what it boils down to is that either your book is a fake based on a
layman's understanding of 1950's science or everything we have learned since
is wrong and misleading because we already knew everything there was to know
in 1955.
I'll have to go with the evidence, not the book.
Enslaved, illogical, elate,
He greets the embarrassed Gods, nor fears,
To shake the iron hand of Fate
Or match with Destiny for beers.
An American (Rudyard Kipling)
Use ashland at ccnet dot com to email me.
Steve Henderson
abso...@aol.comNoBull (Absonite) wrote:
}>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
}electromagnetic
}>energy
}>Date: Fri, Oct 30, 1998 11:35 AM
}>Message-id: <slrn73jn6q...@darwin.ediacara.org>
}>
}>>>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
}>>electromagnetic
}>>>energy
}O'Donohue)
}>>>Date: Wed, Oct 28, 1998 5:26 PM
}>>>Message-id: <363a992c...@news.mira.net.au>
}>>>
}>>>Email modified to foil spammers, delete RemoveInsert to repy
}>>>
}>>>On 27 Oct 1998 16:38:27 -0500 Jack King <jack...@BayNetworks.COM>
}>>>wrote:
}>>>
}>>>>Absonite wrote:
}>>>>>
}>>>>>
}>>>>> I also looked at David's references and the tiny so-called possible
}>tracks
}>>>of
}>>>>> possible worms theory is about as far fetched as any I've ever seen.
}>>
}>> The
}>>>actual dating is still controversial, and need to be confirmed.
}>>
}>>>
}>>
}>>Nothing past 550Mya. Zilch. Fini.
}>>
}>
}>firmly jammed in your ears, shouting 'I'm NOT listening! LA LA LA!' when
}>we keep showing you evidence the Urantia book is wrong in detail.
}>
}>You are clearly not interested in learning anything that might contradict
}>your beliefs. Please go away. This newgroup is not for you.
}>
}>--D.
}
}David,
}I'm sure you read the post by Andrew MacRae. Obviously you can see that the
}dates are changing to come more in line with the Ub. Perhaps all the dates
}are not yet in line due to faulty measurements and analysis of the rock as
}well as poor equipment. Unless I am reading this incorrectly......
}
}about 500 or 495 million years, and the Early Cambrian is most of the
}Cambrian period, moving the start of the Middle Cambrian up to about 509
It's always interesting to see someone reveal themselves as an actual liar as
well as a fool. Andrew's actual quote follows, snipped from his posting.
Start of Quote
For example, the base of the Cambrian was recently revised upwards
from about 570 million years ago to about 545 million years ago, possibly
even younger. This does not change the order of appearance of the fossils
in that interval, but if someone sloppily started mixing-and-matching
information from the old calibration versus the newer one, it could get
quite confusing. For example, if you used nubers from the old
calibration, you could have the Burgess Shale of the Middle Cambrian
(starting about 540 million years ago) seemingly appearing at the start of
the Cambrian or even before, if you used the new estimates for the base of
the Cambrian (about 545). This is totally non-sensical, until you
realize that the dates for the top of the Cambrian and for intervals
within it have *also* been revised to younger dates (the top of the
Cambrian was previously estimated at about 510, now it is thought to be
about 500 or 495 million years, and the Early Cambrian is most of the
Cambrian period, moving the start of the Middle Cambrian up to about 509
or 518 million years ago, depending upon which time scale you accept).
The unwary might mix-and-match data from different sources -- some up to
date, some not -- and mistakenly deduce that the Early Cambrian was
vanishingly short.
End of Quote.
Bit different. Different dates, better descriptions, understanding of
problems, and Andrew's general intelligent style and discussion. Grow up
little boy, lying won't carry you far in this forum.
}I know that Andrew still believes that there is primitive life older than
}550myo but that too will be revised in the years to come.
}
}Then David you say that I should leave this group because I have my fingers
}in my ears and I am not seeking truth. I think you were the poster of the
}1.1 billion yo worms. Even Andrew doesn't believe it as has a recent article
}posted today from Nature. Should they leave also because they don't agree
}with what you believe?
Personally, it's always good to have religious fanatics here because they show
in their own postings the essential worthlessness of their positions. You're a
bit sillier than most with your postings from your 50's pulp science fiction
book, but the mind set is the same. You're simply a different version of folks
like Karl and some others with the slight change that you need a gloss of
science on your beliefs to give them credibility. Ted Holden has the same sort
of mindset, only attached to Velikovskyism instead of Urantia. You are a sort
of pale weak imitation of Ted, however, who can at least think for himself,
however wrongheaded he may be.
rest snipped for bandwidth.
Honus
> > Holy Cow, here it is again! Chapter Six, in all of its glory, posted
> > here in t.o. for the FOURTH time today! Don't you have a job? Or any
> > productive hobbies?
>
> Would you hire him?
No, but I'd certainly teach him how to jerk-off. "Spilling his seed on
the ground" would most definitely qualify as a productive hobby, along
the lines of cleaning the gene pool.
And ten bucks (American) says he posts chapter 83..."How to Wank in
Accord With the Mother Race" or something like that. Either that, or
he'll just say "Meow."
David Iain Greig
> Please revise your estimates of life to conform to reality.
>
Damn. Now I need a new IronoMeter. I had this vintage one.
Oh, well.
--D.
Thomas Paine
>>Subject: Re: billion year old animals? (was Re: 100 "octaves" of
>electromagnetic
>>energy
>>
>>
(snip)
>>
>>Jack King and I disagree on the interpretation of the 3.8 Gyr
>>evidence, but we are both in agreement that by 3.5 Gyr (Ur-Pb Zircon
>>ages) bacteria (and possibly photosynthesis) were firmly established.
>>At 3.5 Gyr there are stromatolites (bacterial colonies), clear
>>microfossils and C12/C13 excess to show biological carbon fixation. O2
>>photosynthesis was well established by 2.0 Gyr (as are the bacteria,
>>with excellent fossils at 2.75 Gyr amd 2.0 Gyr, especilally the
>>Gunflint chert). The first eucaryotic microfossils are found around
>>1.5 Gyr, and at 570 Myr (Ur-Pb dating) there are sponges and embryos
>>of other animals.
>>
>>These dates have been established by different groups using standard
>>methodology, in the case of the Gunflint chert, several times. Are you
>>saying _ALL_ of these groups have got it wrong.
>
>
>Most likely... (;
>Thanks though, I will look at this data as well as Chris's which you were both
>kind enough to supply, as if I will even be able to understand it, but
>somethings definitely not kosher and I believe it's the so-called scientific
>method, it certainly won't be the first time these types of theorys were in
>error.
The way I read the above paragraph:
Absonite doesn't understand the topic.
Absonite claims that others are all wrong.
If you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, how can you say they're
wrong?
How can you keep posting the urantia crap, if you admit you don't understand
the topics?
I guess, on urantia, education isn't required; only arrogance.
>>
>>The fossil animal burrows have been dated at around 1.0 Gyr, but may
>>be likely to be "only" 600 Myr.
>>
>>References:
>>Schopf, W, Science 1993, 260,640-646
>>Mojzsis SJ et al, Nature, 1996, 384, 55-59
>>Eiler & Mojzsis, Nature, 1997, 386, 665
>>Xiao, S et al., Science, 1998, 391, 553-558
>>See also Maynard Smith & Szathmary, "The Major Transitions in
>>Evolution" WH Freeman, 1995, ISBN 0-7167-4525-9
>>
>>Cheers! Ian #3 Most verbose poster on TO for September.
>>=========================================================
>>Ian, Peta and Jack Francis, reynella at werple dot mira dot net dot au
>>http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/ (no TO stuff)
>>http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm (weasle prgrams)
>>http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/hols1.htm (ruminations on the Ark)
>>http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/ssky.htm (southern sky watch)
>>Tree planters, Terry Pratchett fans and sometime scientists (De Chelonian
>>Mobile)
>>
>
>
Thomas Paine
>>You know, when you write like this, we can all see you with your fingers
>>firmly jammed in your ears, shouting 'I'm NOT listening! LA LA LA!' when
>>we keep showing you evidence the Urantia book is wrong in detail.
>>
>>You are clearly not interested in learning anything that might contradict
>>your beliefs. Please go away. This newgroup is not for you.
>>
>>--D.
>
>David,
>I'm sure you read the post by Andrew MacRae. Obviously you can see that the
>dates are changing to come more in line with the Ub. Perhaps all the dates are
>not yet in line due to faulty measurements and analysis of the rock as well as
>poor equipment. Unless I am reading this incorrectly......
You are readng correctly, but blinid to what you read. The scientific
information did not come after the sci-fi book was written, but before.
A short time ago someone posted a whole list of urantia garbage that you
described as predictions but were really written after science made the
discoveries.
Again you've proven you don't know what you're talking about. Try opening you
mind and closing your mouth (keyboard) for a change.
>
>(((the top of the
>Cambrian was previously estimated at about 510, now it is thought to be
>about 500 or 495 million years, and the Early Cambrian is most of the
>Cambrian period, moving the start of the Middle Cambrian up to about 509
>or 518 million years ago, depending upon which time scale you accept). ))
>
>I know that Andrew still believes that there is primitive life older than
>550myo but that too will be revised in the years to come.
>
>Then David you say that I should leave this group because I have my fingers in
>my ears and I am not seeking truth. I think you were the poster of the 1.1
>billion yo worms. Even Andrew doesn't believe it as has a recent article
>posted today from Nature. Should they leave also because they don't agree with
>what you believe?
>((( (even excluding the more recent trace fossil discovery, which I am
>skeptical of
Thomas Paine
>>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>>From: Chris Nedin <cne...@ediacara.org>
(snip)
>Thanks Chris,
>you're certainly not making this easy for me are you?
>
thinking must be hard for you first timers.
you'll get used to it if you keep trying.
Thomas Paine
>Absonite wrote:
>
>> 姫aper 058 [Pg 669]
>>
>> 6. THE TRANSITION PERIOD
>>
>> 450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred.
>
><Big Snip>
>
>> Urantia book 1934 c1955
>
>here in t.o. for the FOURTH time today! Don't you have a job? Or any
>productive hobbies?
>
Dick C.
Hmm, I've got a good wallet. What day do they make baskets? We could use
a few of them around. Instead of sending the posts he does, maybe he could
post the baskets for everyone.
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 poster for month of Aug. Meaning too much free time I guess.
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
Thomas Paine
(snip)
>
>The dating method is wrong. The rocks which they find the fossils in are older
>than the fossils and thank you for the rest of the substantiating information.
> Amazing how year after year science becomes more in line with the Urantia
>book. Please revise your estimates of life to conform to reality.
>
You claim to belong to a race from outer space... and you want us to conform
to reality?
Too Much.... ROFLMAO.
Thomas Paine
(snip)
>It's not Chris' fault if geleogists know more about the Earth than
>the people who wrote the Urantia book earlier this century.
>
>I mean, when you have to tell me that nuclear physics, geology,
>molecular genetics, paleontology, and more fields of science
>have gotten it ALL wrong, just to save your pet theory, then
>I think it's game over for your pet theory.
I've come to the conclusion that instead of a brain between his ears, assonite
has an echo chamber.
Void of any originality, it just repeats ( and boringly posts) the
science fiction fantasies it hears.
Chris Nedin
>>Subject: Re: 100 "octaves" of electromagnetic energy
>>From: Chris Nedin <cne...@ediacara.org>
>>Message-id: <71b71e$8...@drn.newsguy.com>
>>
>>In article <19981028215935...@ng21.aol.com>,
>abso...@aol.comNoBull
>>says...
>>>
>>[deleted]
>>>
>>Nutman, A.P.; Mojzsis, S.J. & Friend, C.R.L. (1997) Recognition of
>>the early Archaean Earth. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61(12): 2475-2484.
>>
>you're certainly not making this easy for me are you?
*I'm* not, its the 50+ years of accumulated knowledge on the history of the
Earth, aquired since the book was written, that's making it hard
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| | "How can Nedin be trusted?" |
| ne...@ediacara.org | C Wieland Director, |
| *my views only* | Creation Research Foundation, |
| | Queensland, Australia. |
---------- http://members.tripod.com/~Cambrian/index.html ----------
Sverker Johansson
[snip]
> >> 姫aper 064 [Pg 720]
> >> (( 900,000 years ago)
> >> To the east of the Badonan peoples, in the Siwalik Hills of northern India,
> >may
> >> be found fossils that approach nearer to transition types between man
> >and the
> >> various prehuman groups than any others on earth.
> >> Urantia book 1934 c1955
> >>
> >> Now, how much more specific can they be. !!!
> >> Have we found these yet or just when do you think we will?
> >
> >We found "them" (Ramapithecus) in the early 30s. At the time the ub was
> >published, Ramapithecus was widely believed to be a "transition type
> >between man and the various prehuman groups". Later finds have
> >shown this to be wrong - R was more related to orangutangs.
> >
> >As usual, the ub is shown to be wrong, and is shown to be
> >based on 1940s pop science.
> >
> >I agree fully with David's statement above. Will you please
> >address it, WITHOUT quoting your book!
>
>
> Sverker,
> First of all,
> *Apparently* you are incorrect but thank you for the attempt. A simple search
> has yielded the following. Rather than "Ramapithecus" it is quite interesting
> that "Dryopithecus" was found **exactly** in the "Siwalik Hills of northern
> India" as the Urantia book stated in 1934- c1955
> I have not discovered yet what the date of this discovery was.
>
> http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_28_97/timeline.htm
>
So the ub "predicts" in 1934/1955 that a discovery will be made in
1927. REAL impressive.
> From what i have read about "Ramapithecus", even that has not been proven
> wrong, simply a theory leaning both ways and the evidence itself was very
> sparse.
So, in which _recent_ journal articles did you read that either Rama or Dryo
is still taken seriously as "transition type between man and the
various prehuman groups" ? References, please.
> Secondly, what is your problem with quoting relevant passages from the UB
My problem is that we are not engaging in a dialog. Your quotes do not directly
address our comments.
>
[snip]
> I am trying to either prove or disprove some of the information in the book and
> so far that has not been done by you or anyone else.
> So far the Urantia information stands as the highest authority available of
> substantial and unequaled revelatory information in every area of science and
> religion known to exist.
>
> How do you suppose some people in chicago in the 1930's could say "in the
> Siwalik Hills of northern India, may be found fossils that approach nearer to
> transition types between man and the various prehuman groups than any others on
> earth.". and then "Dryopithecus" is later found ???
Because fossils had already been found there.
> This of course is only one sentence in the plethora of *Detailed* information
> about evolution.
I have yet to find a single solid example of such detailed information that was
totally unknown in 1955, and confirmed today. I had a long discussion on this
group a while ago with John Hyde, a fellow urantian of yours. He presented
better examples than you, and did use his own brain too, instead of just quoting,
but still didn't come up with anything that could be confirmed.
> Perhaps it is time for you to get off this cursory evaluation of yours "1940s
> pop science." ?
As soon as you come up with something that _isn't_ either 1940s
pop science or totally uncorroborated fantasy, I'll get off it.
Let me put it like this:
There are two main hypotheses concerning the origin of the ub:
1) It was written by aliens with special knowledge.
2) It was written by ordinary humans, with no special knowledge, 1934/1955.
Your notion that the aliens chose to withhold knowledge that we weren't
ready for, makes hypothesis 1 essentially unfalsifiable. Real neat trick,
but totally unscientific.
Hypothesis 2 could be falsified by any info in the book that was
totally unknown in 1955, and confirmed today (assuming it's
specific enough that a lucky guess can be excluded; see detailed
discussion with John Hyde).
Any info that was known by humans in 1955 fails to support
either hypothesis. Anything that we have no info on yet (such
as administrative regions of distant galaxies), likewise fails.
Stuff in the book that was _believed_ to be true by humans in
the 1940s, but later turned out to be not so, is strong evidence in
favour of hypothesis 2 (aliens ought to know better).
Stuff in the book that resembles common layman misunderstandings
of 1940s science is even stronger evidence in
favour of hypothesis 2.
Thus my conclusion when I find lots of stuff in the ub compatible with the last
two points, but none that unequivocally supports hypothesis 1..
--
Best regards, A.afarensis
Sverker Johansson A.creationistus
HLK, Physics H.habilis
Jonkoping College H.erectus
l...@hlk.hj.delete.se H.sapiens
(with apologies to Lucy...)
Robert Gotschall
abso...@aol.comNoBull says...
>
> I know that Andrew still believes that there is primitive life older than
> 550myo but that too will be revised in the years to come.
I know that Andrew still believes that there is an intelligent life form
on T.O. called Absonite. Many of the rest of us consider him to be a
hopeless optimist however.
--
Robert Gotschall -below standard disclaimer-
modify email as needed
Absonite
electromagnetic
>energy
>From: hob...@nauseam.mailexcite.com (Robert Gotschall)
>Date: Mon, Nov 2, 1998 3:33 PM
>Message-id: <MPG.10a7a92dc...@news.lj.net>
>
>In article <19981030123114...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
>abso...@aol.comNoBull says...
>
>>
>> I know that Andrew still believes that there is primitive life older than
>> 550myo but that too will be revised in the years to come.
>
>I know that Andrew still believes that there is an intelligent life form
>
>on T.O. called Absonite. Many of the rest of us consider him to be a
>hopeless optimist however.
>
>--
>Robert Gotschall
Please !!!!!!! Andrew never made such a statement. Andrew is still even
wondering if Absonite is sentient. Absonite wonders the same thing often.
As far as the optimistic remark goes,.. Absonite *knows* where his information
is coming from, and it certainly is not from this planet.
Can any of you say the same?
<g>
All of you "hopeless" skeptics might enjoy this one. Universe building permits
and inspectors. <g>
Even with the <g> it is still true....
apparently universe red-tape in the building dept. takes even longer than in
New York. i.e. 87 billion years vs. Donald Trump waiting about 20.
•Paper 057 [Pg 652]
987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector
number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to
the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of
materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of
Orvonton.
900,000,000,000 years ago the Uversa archives testify, there was recorded a
permit issued by the Uversa Council of Equilibrium to the superuniverse
government authorizing the dispatch of a force organizer and staff to the
region previously designated by inspector number 811,307. The Orvonton
authorities commissioned the original discoverer of this potential universe to
execute the mandate of the Ancients of Days calling for the organization of a
new material creation.
The recording of this permit signifies that the force organizer and staff had
already departed from Uversa on the long journey to that easterly space sector
where they were subsequently to engage in those protracted activities which
would terminate in the emergence of a new physical creation in Orvonton.
875,000,000,000 years ago the enormous Andronover nebula number 876,926 was
duly initiated. Only the presence of the force organizer and the liaison staff
was required to inaugurate the energy whirl which eventually grew into this
vast cyclone of space. Subsequent to the initiation of such nebular
revolutions, the living force organizers simply withdraw at right angles to the
plane of the revolutionary disk, and from that time forward, the inherent
qualities of energy insure the progressive and orderly evolution of such a new
physical system.
At about this time the narrative shifts to the functioning of the personalities
of the superuniverse. In reality the story has its proper beginning at this
point— at just about the time the Paradise force organizers are preparing to
withdraw, having made the space-energy conditions ready for the action of the
power directors and physical controllers of the superuniverse of Orvonton.