Subject: Bad Science
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:17:36 -0400
From: "Ernest P. Moyer" <email@example.com>
CC: World-Destiny@home.ease.lsoft.com, FreeUrantia@home.ease.lsoft.com
Refer to your post
Subject: "bad science" Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:45:07 EDT From: JUpiTeR593@aol.com
Norm Du Val attempted to answer your concerns about the scientific errors in the Urantia Papers by stating “There are few real errors of science . . .,” and by offering a paper by Denver Pearson. While Norm's statement is literally correct, nevertheless scientific errors do exist. Furthermore, the scientific errors have been isolated from non-scientific errors, as though the latter were not important. The non-scientific errors have been causally assigned to “a few typographical errors and minor word changes or corrections (fingerprints),” as Pearson put it.
If we are to come to grips with errors in the Papers we must deal with all of them — not merely those convenient to our scientific orientations.
Both Norm, and Pearson, as well as many others in the Urantia community, engage in these rationalizations to avoid dealing with material that is misleading, and downright theologically false.
Pearson’s rationalization was that “anything touched by human hands has fingerprints.” Indeed, we now know that Sadler left his fingerprints within the Revelation in attempt to correct what he knew were errors and contradictions. These errors and contradictions came to his attention between the first and second printing. An important contribution to that list was in a letter from Benjamin Adams to Sadler in 1959. In reaction, Sadler made changes to the second printing, but neither he, nor Christy, nor anyone else among the Trustees and staff informed the world about those changes. They also suppressed knowledge of the Adams letter. Clearly, they were attempting to hide these problems from the public. Only through the later work of Merritt Horn and Kristen Maaherra did we become aware of them. I also recently discovered a few.
Consider how Pearson attempted to rationalize the statement on page P.657 - §5.
I was surprised that Pearson would engage in this kind of rationalization.
Even a high school astronomy student knows that these statements are not correct. The moon continues to rotate on its axis, with one rotation per revolution, giving us the same face at all times. If the statement about Mercury rotation had been correct it also would rotate on its axis with one rotation per revolution. The statement that they cease rotation is an error which would appeal only to ignorant people.
If we back up into the complicated sentence we find that gravitational braking causes “a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body.”
When a planet leaves one hemisphere always turned toward the sun, it continues to rotate on its axis.
No amount of rationalization can alter that error.
The question then before us is how that childish error got into the Papers. The Revelators would not have engaged in such childish foolishness.
For your information, the first part of the paragraph is “good” revelation. “The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction. Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution. . .” is a sound statement.
Unknown at the time of the Revelation was the behavior of the planets after this “slowing down” of their axial revolutions, and “stabilization” in their orbits. We now know that they go into synchronous motions, with the rotations related to the revolutions around the sun.
For example, Mercury has a simple 3/2 synchronicity. It has a sidereal revolution period around the sun of 87.969 days, and a sidereal rotation period of 58.65 days. (Sidereal means reference to a fixed point in the heavens — not reference to the sun or solar system.)
Another example is Venus. We now know that its rotation is clocked with its revolution around the sun such that it always shows us the same face when it comes between the earth and the sun.
Other synchronous orbits and rotations exists in the solar system.
In my investigations of private celestial contacts with various individuals I learned that one of the concerns expressed by our heavenly administrators is the mechanical mode of the earth, and the influence it might have on the other planets. If we should engage in tremendous energy conversions, such as in a nuclear holocaust, we might upset the natural equilibrium of the earth, and cause it to go into erratic instability in rotation, or other anomalous behavior.
For example, C. S. Lewis had this to say about information he learned during his contacts:
This is what Adamski was told:
As you should know from the Revelation, one of the goals of planetary systems, and universes, is physical stability.
Thus you can see the reasons for the concern about the instability of our planet, and how we might contribute further to that instability. We are greatly retarded, due to the rebellion, and the default. We must become physically stable, as well as spiritually stable, to enter into light and life. Programs now being prosecuted on this planet are designed to achieve those stabilities.
You can also see a greater reason for the error introduced into the paragraph on page 657. If an evil spirit personality wished to inhibit our recognition and understanding of system stabilities he would introduce just such errors. Continued childish thinking, reinforced by those erroneous statements, would prevent us from coming to grips with the synchonicities in the solar system, and how they contribute to future system stability. Thus the error has important theological consequences which went unnoticed by previous commentators.
Clearly, there are profound imports behind such “simple” errors.
Only simple minded people would fail to recognize those imports.