User:Richiar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am a psychiatrist.
I think Wikipedia is a great project. I think it is a very useful way for people to learn about the world, and a way for people to create a more harmonious and fulfulling world for us all!
I look forward to participating in various selected articles.
[edit] UB
I'm afraid I know very little about the Urantia Book, outside of what Martin Gardener wrote about it, which was enough to dissuade me from investigating much further. I was editing the page at the insistence of a friend, and will likely stay out of Urantia debates from now on. Thomas B 06:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Richiar,
- Welcome. Feel free to ask me on my talk page about wikipedia in general or the Urantia article when you have questions, I'm happy to help (as are many people on wikipedia you'll find).
- I saw your recent note on my talk page and also the question for Thomas B. I can answer that one about the universe being considered older in TUB versus current scientific theory. Gardner explored the topic in his book, so is the verifiable source for the article's wording, but online you can see paper 57 here for yourself. The estimated age of the universe from the currently dominate scientific model of the big bang theory has it at about 13.7 billion years give or take a few hundred million. Paper 57 describes "the enormous Andronover nebula" as starting to come about 875 billion years ago and that it was "well established" at 800 billion. Obviously a large discrepency with current science, and this is describing only a part of space. An implication is that other parts of "Orvonton" already were there and the physical universe is even older (off the top of my head I can't recall if a specific ages for the "superuniverses" like "Orvonton" are given).
- About how to structure the Urantia Book topic as it grows, which you were talking about on my user page, I'll respond to the similar message you left on the article's discussion page. I think there are a few ways to go. When you go through the discussion archives for the article, you'll probably come across my views, which haven't change much, but I'm open to hashing out other ideas. I share your view that it'll be good to aim for language that isn't bogged down in too much mumbojumbo but that side articles can explore more details for those who want to dive into them.
- Thanks. Wazronk 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
