What's your opinion about the following paper from a guy with MD on the Research Gate website states that much of the so-called "Urantia" book is scientifically validated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book

Criticism of its science
In Paper 101, “The Real Nature of Religion,” the authors write:[100]

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.

As pointed out by the likes of Martin Gardner, the science in The Urantia Book reflects the views that prevailed at the time the book originated.[101] The claim by the authors, that no unknown scientific discoveries could be imparted, can function as a ruse to allow mistakes to be dismissed later.[102] The appeal to convenience that post-1955 scientific knowledge is not being presented is consistent with a book written by humans in the 1950s instead of celestial beings with superior knowledge.[101]

Examples of criticisms regarding the science in The Urantia Book include:

The described formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis,[103] which though popular in the early part of the 20th century, was discarded by the 1940s after major flaws were noted.[104] The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.[103]
According to the book’s descriptions, the universe is hundreds of billions of years old and periodically expands and contracts — “respires” — at 2-billion-year intervals. Recent observations measure the true age of the universe to be 13.8 billion years.[105] The book does not support the Big Bang theory.[106]
A fundamental particle called an “ultimaton” is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is at odds with modern particle physics.[107]
The Andromeda Galaxy is claimed to be “almost one million” light years away, repeating a systematic mistake in the measurements of the distance to galaxies made in the 1920s.[108] The galaxy is now known to be 2.5 million light years away.
The book repeats the mistaken idea that planets close to a sun will gradually spin slower until one hemisphere is left always turned to the sun due to tidal locking, citing Mercury as an example. Scientists at the time of the book’s origin thought one side of Mercury always faced the sun, just as one side of the Moon always faces the Earth. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered however that Mercury rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun.[106] Scientists further established that Mercury is locked in this spin rate in a stable resonance of 3 spins for every 2 orbits, and it is not slowing and so will never have one side left always turned to the sun.[109]
Some species are said to have evolved suddenly from single mutations without transitional species.[110] The theory originated with Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries but was short-lived and is not now supported.[111]
The book erroneously says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.[112] In 2009, Urantia Foundation acknowledged the error and revised the book.[c]
Controversial statements about human races can be found in the book.[114] Gardner recounts that William S. Sadler also wrote eugenicist works that contain similar arguments to some ideas presented in The Urantia Book.[115]
While some adherents of the book believe that all of the information in The Urantia Book including its science is literally true, others accept that the science is not fully accurate.[116][117] For example, Meredith Sprunger, a liberal believer in The Urantia Book and retired minister of the United Church of Christ, wrote that research “has revealed that virtually all of the scientific material found in the UB was the accepted scientific knowledge of the period in which the book was written, was held by some scientists of that time, or was about to be discovered or recognized.”[118][119] He further argued against its literal infallibility and said that fundamentalism over the book is “just as untenable as Biblical fundamentalism.”[118]

Other believers maintain that the book has prophetically anticipated scientific advances. They believe more of its science — if not all of it — will be proven correct in the future. Gardner evaluated many of these claims as of 1995 and argued that they were fairly unconvincing.[101] Because the book is said to have been written by the revelators by 1935 while then was not being published until 1955, discoveries from science during the two intervening decades are often declared to be prophetic by believers, while skeptics point out that edits could have been made to the book up to its 1955 publication.[120] For instance, the catalytic role that carbon plays in the sun’s nuclear reactions is described in the book, and Hans Bethe’s announcement of the discovery was made in 1938.[121]

The only apparent anticipation of science the book has made, in Gardner’s opinion, is that it says the magnetic sense that homing pigeons possess is “not wholly wanting as a conscious possession by mankind.” In 1980, a British zoologist, Robin Baker, published evidence that humans have a limited magnetic sense.[122]

Mark McMenamin, a professor of geology, quotes a section of the book describing a billion-year-old supercontinent that subsequently split apart, forming ocean basins where early marine life developed. He says, “This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually appear in the scientific literature until many decades later.” McMenamin also states, “Of course I am being selective here in my choice of quotations, and there are reams of scientifically untenable material in The Urantia Book.”[123]

No, I did not know any of that, except perhaps in the sense that I am feeling deja vu that I may be remembering you having asked something about the subject before.