Its a potpourri of fact , and fiction . Every book that tells people how to behave does this . They have an agenda , yes they are smart as hell , but they're using the dimwits to lead their parade .

Stand up for YOURSELF, f**k the bastards that put you on the front lines .

Another off the wall/nonsensical comment with vulgarity I don't need to put up with. So sorry but you will be added to my block list. I wish you well, nonstandard, but I am not going to tolerate your remarks any longer.

Eventually, Gardner comes to the science of the UB. If the UB really were an extraterrestrial revelation, it should accurately describe our universe. It fails this test miserably. The UB claims the universe is over one trillion years old; most scientists date it at about 15 billion years (186). The temperature it assigns to the sun’s surface is off by thousands of degrees (190); it falsely says that Mercury keeps the same face towards the sun (196). The UB teaches that humans have 48 chromosomes; it should be 46 (217). Atoms supposedly cannot possess more than 100 electrons; this “limit” was broken in 1955, as any periodic table will confirm (214).
Once or twice Gardner slips up. The UB claims our solar system was formed with 12 planets, and Gardner notes the improbability of “three undiscovered planets beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto” (189). He apparently missed its statement that the fifth planet between Mars and Jupiter “fragmentized” and became the asteroid belt (UB, 658). This leaves two undiscovered planets, not three. He also refers to gamete reproduction as mitosis, instead of meiosis (217).

I was reading this article
http://www.equip.org/article/urantia-the-great-cult-mystery/




Just was curious .

The Urantia Book may have some inferior strains of degenerate science....

I don't believe the universe was created in six days of 24 hours but I do believe Adam and Eve were created directly by God. If God can create the universe from nothing why can't He create humans from nothing? How does that tax an all-powerful God? Where is the evidence that Adam and Eve evolved from other species?

I don't believe the universe was created in six days of 24 hours but I do believe Adam and Eve were created directly by God. If God can create the universe from nothing why can't He create humans from nothing? How does that tax an all-powerful God? Where is the evidence that Adam and Eve evolved from other species?

The fact remains as Ludlow said..."there is plenty of evidence that human beings MIGHT have evolved from other species, but no direct evidence that they actually did." And it certainly was not the ape or the chimpanzee as they are still around swinging in the trees.

The fact remains as Ludlow said..."there is plenty of evidence that human beings MIGHT have evolved from other species, but no direct evidence that they actually did." And it certainly was not the ape or the chimpanzee as they are still around swinging in the trees.

I need to comment on this, from OTD. He said:



The article in question comes from a site called The Christian Research Institute, CRI.

Wow, OTD going to a Christian site to read an article about a book by Martin Gardner about The Urantia Book. Why so many intermediaries? How much is lost in this process? Why not just read Martin Gardner directly, or The Urantia Book directly? Why shop around for all these opinions?

Otd continues (some deleted for now):



THE URANTIA BOOK DOES NOT SAY THAT HUMANS HAVE 48 CHROMOSOMES. IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE. IT DOES NOT SAY IT. IT DOES NOT TEACH IT EITHER. AND OTD MAKES THIS MISTAKE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT AND HE SHOPS AROUND FOR OPINIONS.

The fact remains as Ludlow said..."there is plenty of evidence that human beings MIGHT have evolved from other species, but no direct evidence that they actually did." And it certainly was not the ape or the chimpanzee as they are still around swinging in the trees.

That is a conjecture with no proof, Sail.

Why are you so arrogant and foul mouthed?

I said: Apes do not have man-mind and mind is not solely a matter of brain size.

If you think you are so smart tell me why I'm wrong?

The fact remains as Ludlow said..."there is plenty of evidence that human beings MIGHT have evolved from other species, but no direct evidence that they actually did." And it certainly was not the ape or the chimpanzee as they are still around swinging in the trees.

Scientific fact: Humans have forty-six pairs of chromosomes.

http://www.equip.org/article/urantia-the-great-cult-mystery/

Eventually, Gardner comes to the science of the UB. If the UB really were an extraterrestrial revelation, it should accurately describe our universe. It fails this test miserably. The UB claims the universe is over one trillion years old; most scientists date it at about 15 billion years (186). The temperature it assigns to the sun’s surface is off by thousands of degrees (190); it falsely says that Mercury keeps the same face towards the sun (196). The UB teaches that humans have 48 chromosomes; it should be 46 (217). Atoms supposedly cannot possess more than 100 electrons; this “limit” was broken in 1955, as any periodic table will confirm (214).

Scientific facts are already proven and your deluded dimwit man-mind is a failure.

.

The sex cells are the male sperm and female egg — each of which contain 23 chromosomes, making up a total of 46. Chromosomes are the units within sex cells that determine phenotypic traits. The UB is clearly talking about chromosomes but using vague language.

If the passage doesn't mean chromosomes, tell us what it does mean.

What are the mysterious forty-eight units of pattern control — trait determiners — in the sex cells of human reproduction that aren't chromosomes?

On Urantia there are forty-eight units of pattern control — trait determiners — in the sex cells of human reproduction.

~ UB 36:2.11 (397.11)

Now, back to chromosomes.

“There are 24 distinct human chromosomes: 22 autosomal chromosomes, plus the sex-determining X and Y chromosomes.”

The authors of The Urantia Book specify “the sex cells of human reproduction,” rather than somatic (nonsex) cells, in an apparent attempt to keep us from misinterpreting the statement. At the time of its publication, scientists mistakenly thought that there were forty-eight chromosomes in a somatic cell. By specifying “sex cells” the authors are actually steering the reader away from this mistake, and away from the confusion of the homologous pairs of autosomes in a somatic cell.

A germ (sex) cell has twenty-three chromosomes—the twenty-two autosomes plus an X or a Y chromosome.

Collectively, “the sex cells” contain the two different implementation subsets of the full design set of twenty-four chromosomes. Each chromosome contains one double-stranded DNA molecule; thus, collectively, there are forty-eight distinct units of genes in the human sex cells. Of course, no single sex cell contains all forty-eight; but there are forty-eight units of trait determiners “in the sex cells of human reproduction.”

.
I'm not sure they do know, because where it appears, the word "chromosomes" reads like it's been dropped fairly randomly and mindlessly into a bowl of sciencey but ultimately meaningless word salad.

     

It's as if the author(s) are so perverse, or enjoy using vague language so much that they'll drop a specific scientific term into a vague context, or use vague terms like "units of pattern control" and "trait determiners" into a context where the specific scientific term would be more appropriate.


This is correct. Here's an image showing the 24 distinct human chromosomes.

                            


Yes, we've established that the authors are talking about the sex cells, which are the cells found in a sperm or an egg.


This is where the UB apologist lapses into UB style gobbledegook. It isn't correct to say “the sex cells” contain the two different implementation subsets of the full design set of twenty-four chromosomes, whatever that's supposed to mean. It's more correct to state that there are 24 distinct human chromosomes, and that the sex cells contain 46 from this range, with the particular sex determining chromosomes dependent on the sex of the baby. This is XX for a female and XY for a male.

In my opinion, the author(s) is simply restating the mistaken scientific belief of his time that the human sex chromosomes totaled 48, and the vague convoluted and unappetizing language is consistent with the earlier passage where the word "chromosomes" is used, and all the rest of the book really.