Scientific discoveries that prove the Bible
Although some try, this
writer thinks it is circular reasoning to quote the Bible to prove the Bible. Let's take this approach
instead: Is there any scientific knowledge in the Bible that was over and above human knowledge at the time written? If so,
wouldn't that be strong evidence that the Bible was written by a higher intelligence? Let's look at six scientific
discoveries that do just that. In addition, let's add one bonus verification.
Imagine yourself living 3,000 years ago. Further imagine yourself writing a book.
Like everyone else in your day, you wonder what holds up the earth. Surely
it has to rest on something. (We know about the force of gravity only because modern scientists have discovered it.) Aside
from that knowledge, living on the earth, observing only what a human can see and feel, wouldn't it
be the logical, indeed the only conclusion that the earth rests on or is supported by something physical?
Gravity not having been discovered, what did ancient man believe the earth rested on? The book "World
Mythology" (1) says this "The world was often said to rest on the back of a turtle". Wouldn't that make
sense to human beings living thousands of years ago? Wouldn't it seem logical that the earth would rest on something slow
and steady? Yes it would. So, not knowing better, a giant turtle might be thought of as an ideal platform for the earth.
Not all cultures believed in the turtle answer though. Reference (2) tells us
more " When one examines the writings of the Hindu, Buddhist or Greek pagan worships, for example, one finds clear reference
to the concept of the earth being held up by a man, elephant, catfish, or some other physical support."
The Encyclopedia Americana (13) tells us about ancient man's belief about the earth, "The earliest
known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe".
Whatever the particular answer, ancient logic and belief was that the
earth had some kind of physical support.
How then was the Bible able to
get it right? How could a man writing a book - 2,800 years before the discovery of gravity - possibly get it right?
Notice what the Bible says in Job 26:7, "He stretches out the north
over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing".
of us have seen pictures of the earth taken from outer space. Isn't that exactly how the earth appears? As if it is hung
on nothing? And indeed, isn't gravity, the force we now know holds up the earth, something that is not seen?
This scientific statement, written 3,000 years ago, was against all that was known at the time. I submit
to you that this correct knowledge, this scientifically accurate picture, came from something or someone higher than man;
that a higher intelligence is revealed.
Proof number two
look at more Bible statements. This time about fountains, or springs, or wells, in the oceans. (The Hebrew word used in the
Bible can mean any of those three).
Notice Gen 7:1, telling about the flood.
It says, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life...were all the fountains [springs] of the great deep broken up..."
Notice Prov 8:29 that says, "Wisdom was there when God established the clouds
above, and strengthened the fountains [springs] of the deep."
Are there really fountains or springs
in the oceans? If your answer is that the Bible was wrong about that, you would have seemed correct for some 3,000
years. Correct until 1977 that is. Despite sixty years of modern submarine activity, ocean springs were unknown and
undiscovered until 1977.
With only 5% of the ocean floor
explored guess what? In 1977 scientists found springs in the ocean off the coast of Ecuador. (8) They were
found at an ocean depth of 1.5 miles! They contain super heated water of about 450 degrees, and are called Hot Springs.
The article reported more springs. It said scientists exploring another section of ocean expected to find
springs 125 to 200 miles apart. Instead they were much closer together. The scientists found six springs about 60 miles
apart. As you consider this, remember that the springs were discovered with only 5% of the ocean floor explored. How many
more springs might there be in the other 95%?
of ocean springs - a blow to Bible skeptics
As a side note, some Bible skeptics claim the oceans
and the atmosphere together do not contain enough water to flood the earth to the depth needed to cover the mountains. That
criticism does not hold up after the discovery of ocean springs, because the Bible says the springs in the oceans were broken
up at the time of the flood, which would increase their flow.
newly discovered springs cause even more problems for Bible skeptics. How much extra water could the broken up springs produce?
Notice this quote (9) "There is probably as much water circulating under the sea floor as there is in the oceans
Isn't that remarkable? You might want to ponder that
The Bible statements about springs in the oceans, written 3,000
years ago, were against all logic, all that was known, or indeed could possibly have been known, at the time. I submit to
you that this correct scientific knowledge came from something or someone higher than man; it reveals a higher intelligence.
Proof number three
I recently gave a message
at the Church of God, Terre Haute, Indiana. Included in the message was a reference that no new cells are being created today.
I based that on studies where scientists agree, "All cells come only from existing cells." (For more information
One of my listeners, Levi, was certainly paying attention. He came to me afterward to
ask a good question; "If no new cells are being created today, where do the trillions of our body cells body come from?"
Levi's question prompted me to do more research on cells. That research
led me to what I consider proof of the Bible number three.
In Gen 35:11
the Bible tells us this, "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company
of nations shall be of you, and kings shall come out of your loins."
are five other references to "coming out of your loins" in Genesis, Exodus, Kings, and Chronicles.
Let's notice Heb 7:5 that says, "And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office
of the priesthood....though they come out of the loins of Abraham". An explanation may be helpful. Abraham is an ancestor
to the sons of Levi.
Now notice verse 10 that really makes my point, "For he [Levi] was yet in
the loins of his father [Abraham], when Melchizedek met him."
explanation may again be helpful. The Bible is saying Levi, who was born after Abraham, was present at this earlier meeting
because he was there in the loins of his father [Abraham].
Is that factual? Is such
a statement scientific? Was Levi present in the loins of his great grand father Abraham? How about us? Were
we present in the loins of our father before we were even born? In the loins of our grandfather? Was our father in the loins
of his father? What‘s going on here?
My further study of cells showed the Bible statements are very scientific.
The scientific evidence
In previous studies I had read several scientific statements
like this, "Cells come only from existing cells." The conclusion given in my message that new cells are no longer
being created was correct. The confusion arises from the fact that new cells are being made, but they come only from
an already existing parent cell.
Levi's question that prompted me to do more study led to a better
definition from the book "Cell and Molecular Biology"(5) "Cells can only arise by division
from a pre-existing cell." So what appears to be newly created cells are actually existing cells dividing themselves.
Every human starts out as one cell, which divides and multiplies. That one cell was the result of an existing
cell - one from each parent. Where did our parent's one starting cell come from? From their parents.
Lewis Thomas (6) puts it this way, "You start out as a single cell derived from the coupling of a sperm
and an egg".
"The Way Life Works" (4) says, "We each
began as an egg fertilized by a sperm, a single cell."
Karp explains it this way, (5) "The production of offspring by sexual reproduction includes the union of two cells,"
So there you have it. We start out as a single cell, which resulted from the
union of two cells, one from our father and one from our mother. Our parents in turn started from the union of existing cells
from their father and mother. And we can go back through our ancestors. All came from existing cells.
Which means, and this is vital, that original cell existed in your parents before you were
All humans, and indeed science tells us, all life
including animals and plants, came from cells that existed in their parents.
belong to the Spencer family genealogical society. Our lineage is traced back to four brothers who immigrated to Connecticut
in 1630. Their parents were born in 1576 in Stotfold, England. .
The point is that for $99.00 the Society
will do a DNA test to establish that a member did or did not come from a particular ancestor. Many members are taking advantage
of this comparatively low priced service. This ability to DNA test for a far back ancestor I find quite remarkable.
My son Craig told me his family obtained a mixed breed dog from the pound. He added that for a $1,000 the
pound will do a blood test and tell them exactly what breeds his dog's ancestors were. I find that also quite remarkable.
It's all about ancestors
So it's all about ancestors, isn't it? Just as the Bible
Reference (6) supports these conclusions as it says this, "All of today's DNA, strung
through all the cells of the earth, is simply an extension and elaboration of that first molecule." Substitute cell for
molecule and it goes back to the first cell, even to Adam and Eve.
(5) sums it up well when it says, "Cell division, therefore, forms the link between a parent and its offspring; between
living species and their extinct ancestors."
So the many Bible
statements about "being in the loins of" are accurate, are scientific.
But how did the Bible writers know that scientific principle thousands of years ago?
It was not until 1855 that a German scientist named Rudolf Virchow learned about cells and stated that
"All cells come from existing cells." (7) Even then Virchow's statement about cells was not universally accepted
until it was finally proven correct with the explosion of modern cell research in the 1950's.
The book adds that in 1880 August Weismann pointed out that, since cells come from pre-existing cells,
"all cells today can trace their origins back to ancient cells." Yes, science says we indeed can trace
our present day cells back to the ancient cells of our ancestors.
statements written from 3,000 to nearly 2,000 years ago were based on cell knowledge not known at the time.
I submit to you that this accurate scientific knowledge came from something or someone higher than man; it could only
have come from a higher intelligence.
Proof number four
Americana (13) tells us this about a flat earth, "The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was
a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe". The well known historian, Richard Pipes, (21) adds this, "...living
500 years ago, in the 15th Century, the vast majority of the people believed that the earth is flat".
So where did the knowledge in this Bible statement come from?
"It is he who sits upon the circle of the earth." (14) That verse was written about two thousand eight hundred
years ago, written when the only belief was the earth was flat.
200 years after Isaiah's writing did a man start to think the earth might not be flat after all.. Notice as we
are told this, "As early as the 6th century B.C., however, some Greek thinkers such as Pythagoras had progressed
far enough beyond this simple image to realize that the earth might be a sphere". (13)
So it wasn't until two hundred years after Isaiah that Pythagoras considered the earth might be a sphere.
And his version was not accepted by many of the people living in his time.
When did the
idea of a circular earth finally become accepted? We are told this, "The concept of a spherical earth was not widely
accepted until the Renaissance, however".(13) Just as Pipes confirmed in his writing.
So it appears Isaiah's scientifically correct Bible statement was written
two thousand three hundred years before a round earth was widely accepted.
skeptic might argue, "OK, so the general wisdom in Isaiah's day was the earth was flat. There still could have been
someone in Isaiah's time who thought the earth was round, and that is where Isaiah got his idea".
Let's take up a skeptic's argument and see if it makes sense for Isaiah to have gone against the wisdom
of his day.
First we have to acknowledge there are only two alternatives:
1) Either Isaiah was writing solely himself, which means he was lying when he said he was writing at
God's direction. Or,
2) It was written by a higher intelligence communicating to his human
creatures through Isaiah.
Logically, it has to be one or the other.
So let's examine the first alternative. If it was written by a man entirely
on his own, wouldn't that man want his writings to be accepted by his peers? And for the man to receive that acceptance,
wouldn't the writer have had to follow the prevailing wisdom of his day?
you have the vital crux of the matter.
It seems evident that the pre-dominant
wisdom at the time of the writing, in the eighth century B.C., was that the earth was flat. Therefore for Isaiah to
write otherwise would subject him to the disdain and ridicule of his peers.
then have to consider, why would a man write a book entirely of his own making, while at the same time claiming what he wrote
came from God?
Wouldn't it be to elevate himself in the eyes of others?
Wouldn't it be to advance his own glory and edification? Wouldn't it be to gain a measure of prestige for himself?
Yes, yes, yes to all of those.
if Isaiah was a man writing for his own glory and edification, surely the last thing he would do in his writings would be
to go against the conventional beliefs of his day!
So it took courage
for Isaiah to write about a circular earth. It went against everything at the time. Doesn't it seem what Isaiah wrote
came from a being who knew the earth was circular, and not flat?
that Isaiah writing about a circular earth two thousand three hundred years before a round earth was widely accepted is proof
Proof number five
is an another revealing section of the Bible found in Isaiah 40:12 "Behold the nations are like a drop of a bucket, and
are counted as the small dust of the balance; behold, he [ the creator] takes up the coasts as a very little thing."
How do you react to that verse?
it silly? Is it foolish? Is it folly to say that whole nations are like a "drop in a bucket"? How about saying the
coasts are a very little thing? Isn't that just as far-fetched?
know those descriptions can't possibly be literal, don't we? What reason could Isaiah have had to write such nonsense?
Those reactions, or something like them, made perfect sense - until the twentieth
century that is. For it was only during the past one hundred years that scientists were able to look into the atom, which
is the building block of all the matter in the universe.
What did they find? They found as incredible
as it sounds - that atoms are mostly empty space!
What does that mean? It means there is
very little actual substance or mass in everything around us.
It will be necessary to lay a foundation for me to show readers how scientifically accurate is the verse in
Isaiah 40. Please bear with me, for it is necessary.
point about the building blocks of all matter is that atoms are very tiny. I will let some science sources speak for themselves.
"Everything around us is made up of atoms. An atom is incredibly tiny -
more than a million times smaller than the thickness of a human hair. (15)
smallest speck that can be seen under a microscope contains more than 10 billion atoms. (15)
"Each of your
fingertips, for instance, contains a trillion atoms." (17)
are incredibly small.
The second point about these "building
blocks" is that most of their mass is in the tiny, tiny nucleus. Notice:
least 99.995% of the mass of each atom resides in a tiny nucleus composed of protons and neutrons." (17)
If most of the matter is contained in the nucleus, how big is the nucleus
compared to the rest of the atom that contains only 0.005% of the mass? Here are some answers:
"If the typical atom were the size of a football field, the nucleus would be a grain of salt at midfield."
"If a hydrogen atom were about 4 miles in diameter, its nucleus
would be no bigger than a tennis ball." (15)
"If the atom were
to be inflated until it filled an Olympic stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a pea lying alone in the center of the
Since almost all of the mass of an atom is in an even
tinier, tinier nucleus, what is the rest of an atom filled with? Let our experts confirm that an atom is mostly empty space:
From the reference that told us our fingertips contain a trillion atoms,
we have this, "Surprisingly, there is still plenty of nothing in those fingertips." (17)
Writing about the rest of an atom outside of its nucleus, one author put it like this, "A cloud of electrons
marks the atom's outer bounds. The rest is a void".(17)
issue of Discover magazine had an article about the emptiness of atoms and thus the emptiness of the matter that is made from
The title of the article all by itself helped make my point because
it was....Much ado about Nothing". (17) The sub-title of the article reinforced my point nicely because it was....."Time
to let go of Matter, Emptiness is what Rules the Universe".
the building blocks of all matter are themselves mostly empty space, are you starting to see how scientifically accurate Isaiah's
statement is? Remember, he said, "The nations are like a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance,
behold, he takes up the coasts as a very little thing."
modern scientists, time after time, say much the same thing?
more? How about this one? "All matter is like this [empty]. Take a man and squeeze the empty spaces out of him, like
the holes in a sponge, and you are left with a little pile of solid substance, no larger than a flyspeck." (18)
The author added this observation, "We are like hollow men and our insubstantial
bodies are strung together with electromagnetic and nuclear forces that do no more than create the illusion of matter."
Reference (19) puts it like this, "The dimension at which compressed
matter becomes a black hole is called the Radius. For Planet Earth, the radius would be the size of a pearl. Can anyone imagine
this entire planet squeezed down to the size of a pearl?" (Well, yes, one did. Some 2,800 years ago.)
Another reference (8) says this, "Scientists describe a black hole as a single point in space that is
infinitely dense. That is hard to grasp, but think about the head of a pin. Now imagine everything on the Earth, the trees,
the houses, the beaches, the oceans, [we might say the nations] everything fitting into the head of that pin. The point in
space where a black hole exists is infinitely smaller than the head of that pin, yet anything can be compressed and fit into
So it seems the latest scientific discoveries confirm that all
of the matter that makes up a man, or makes up the whole earth, with the emptiness removed, would be the size of a
flyspeck, or a pearl, or fit into the head of a pin!
For a Bible
skeptic, could it get worse? Yes it could. You see Isaiah had more wording that sounds strangely like he knew about twentieth
century physics. Writing about the creator, we find this, "Who has measured...the dust of the earth in a measure, and
weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance"? (19)
we just read that all the dust of the earth can fit into a measure, all the matter in the mountains can be compressed so as
to fit on scales, and the hills can be compressed and their actual material would fit in a balance?
It took a different mind to write that way
What do humans see as they look around
at their physical world? Don't we see objects that appear solid and substantial? Isn't it the furthest thing from
our minds that they are made up of atoms - atoms that are mostly empty space?
if you were the creator of that physical matter, wouldn't you see them for what they really are? Wouldn't you see
them as trillions and trillions of atoms - atoms that are mostly empty space?
submit these verses in Isaiah came not from a mere man writing of his own very limited knowledge, but came from the Creator
God. The creator who looks at the earth and everything on it and sees it for what modern science says it is - innumerable
atoms that contain very little actual mass or substance.
In the final
analysis, modern science confirms that the whole earth and everything on it are specks of dust.
There is no way a man writing two thousand eight hundred years ago would have had a clue about atoms and their
emptiness. Those verses in Isaiah chapter 40 are proof - and strong proof indeed - number five that the Bible is the result
of a higher intelligence.
Proof number six
The book of Ecclesiastes was written about 3,000 years ago. Imagine yourself living in that time. What would
you know about the wind? Only what you could see and feel, right? You would know the wind blows some days very strong, some
days very little, some days none at all. Sometimes from the north, then south, then east and west.
short, all you would know are two things:
1) The wind without any advance pattern to it can come from any direction.
The velocity of the wind varies without any advance pattern, from strong to weak to none at all.
then, could you possibly make this statement in Eccl 1:6? "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north;
it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again to its circuits." Notice the key words: "whirls about continually"
and "its circuits".
This statement, against
everything a human could observe and possibly know, stood by itself for nearly three thousand years!
took a French mathematician named Coeriolis, who died in 1843, to study and identify wind circuits. What Coeriolis discovered
supported the Bible statement in Ecclesiastes, not just in one way, but in three ways.
First notice the Bible said wind goes south and turns about unto the north. Coeriolis found the wind goes
clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, and then turns about and goes counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere!
Named for him, the Coriolis effect is very important in understanding wind and ocean currents.
Second, are there in fact wind circuits? The World Book Encyclopedia has a diagram showing the known wind
systems, or circuits. Their diagram is a map of the earth with little arrows showing the location and direction of each wind
circuit. How many are there? Their diagram has plotted 28 circuits!
there's more. You have heard your local TV weather personalities refer to the "jet stream" and how it affects
your local weather. Jet streams do exist. And, as we know, streams, are continual, the opposite
of intermittent. They too have established circuits. The jet streams have winds at speeds of up to 200 mph.
World War II pilots first discovered them.
Third, the Bible said
the wind whirls about continually. How could an observer on the ground possibly know that? In fact at ground level the wind
blows the very opposite of continually. But obviously the higher winds do. If they didn't, the encyclopedia could
not diagram 28 of their circuits.
Eccl 1:6 made
no sense in 1,000 BC, and no sense for 2,800 years until the research of Coeriolis in the early 1800s.
That Bible statement about the winds written 3,000 years ago,
was against all logic, all that was known, or indeed could be know, at the time. I submit to you that this correct
knowledge, this scientifically accurate picture, came from something or someone higher than man; it was inspired by a higher
What is the significance of these proofs
of the Bible?
As pointed out in "Creation Corner" articles, we are not
to use the Bible to prove the existence of the creator. Instead we are told to look at the things that have
been made; things outside of the Bible. This particular study has attempted to do just
that - prove the Bible by coupling Bible statements with things discovered outside of the Bible.
Why is proving the Bible important?
Why is it important to have
the credibility and authority of the Bible verified?
Because the Bible serves these major purposes:
1) It explains
life and death.
2) It gives history, things that were done poorly and things done well, that humans can learn from.
3) It reveals Jesus as personal savior who voluntarily died a very humiliating and painful death that his human creatures
might have eternal life.
4) It explains God's plan and purpose for his human creatures.
5) It contains instructions
from the creator advising humans how to live their physical lives to gain for themselves the most fulfillment and happiness.
6) In short, because it is the Maker's Instruction Manual of how to live.
The Creator in other religions
Before we look at how the Bible handles creation
different than other religions, let's first acknowledge that other religions and cultures also recognize a creator.
1) Hinduism believes in Brahma the creator. Then Hindus proceed to worship hundreds of other gods. Just as
warned in the Bible, Hindus worship the creatures instead of the creator.
to me Islam teaches a creator of the cosmos. But Muslims then proceed to follow the teachings of Muhammad, a mere human being.
In that sense they, too, worship a created being instead of the creator.
3) A previous
(11) article showed that a creator is a common belief around the world. But like the others, their worship generally
ends up being the creatures and not the creator.
does the Bible handle creation differently?
The first way Christianity is
different is that Christians worship the creator, not the creatures. An absolutely vital difference.
The second way Christianity is different from the others is
that in the Christian religion, Jesus the Christ, the one who did the creating, is revealed and worshipped as personal savior.
The third way Christianity is different from all other religions is the Bible. How? Because
it is the only religion where the creator claims to communicate to His human creatures. That communication is through
the Bible. Proving the accuracy of Bible statements helps establish the credibility of the creator's communication.
Number seven - a bonus verification of Bible accuracy
centuries skeptics said the Bible was stories and myths told by ignorant shepherds and nomads. For example, the skeptics taunted,
where is the city called Ur? It could not be found.
Ur was the
city the Bible patriarch Abraham was said to have left to dwell the rest of his life (about 125 years) in tents as commanded
by God. The account is found in Gen 12:1 and 15:7. Neh 9:7 also confirms it. The New Testament talks about it in Heb 11:9-10.
So for hundreds of years the skeptics had a field day with Ur. Because it was
not found, the skeptics said Ur proved the Bible wrong; proved the Bible to be myths and unfounded legends.
in 1854 the city of Ur was found!
Not much excavation work was done however. It took an Englishman
named Leonard Wooley to excavate Ur. He labored there from 1922 until 1934. What Wooley found amazed scholars and laymen alike.
It turned out Ur had been a powerful, prosperous, colorful and busy capital and trade center. It was a sophisticated
city, highly organized. In a surprising contrast, Babylon the Great had simple mud buildings. But Ur, which was built 1,200
years before Babylon, had homes made of burnt brick, much like ours today.
Were the homes in Ur a simple
3 or 4 rooms? No! Wooley found they had been 2 story villas, with 13-14 rooms surrounding a courtyard. They had a modern lavatory
up the stairway. There was more than enough room for the family, their servants, and guests.
One workshop made 12 kinds
of clothing. The names of the mill girls and their quota of rations, even to the weight of wool given each worker, and what
each produced, was all recorded.
Tax receipts had been meticulously kept by week, month, and year.
How about mathematics?
Tables and formulas computing square and cube roots were found.
How about architecture? Surprisingly the architects
of UR used all of today's engineering techniques; the column, arch, vault, and dome,
which was the city's main religious structure, was built 400 years before Abraham. It was three stories high, with walls
that all sloped inward, there was not a straight line in it. All walls were slightly curved so as to minimize what would otherwise
be an over powering strength effect. The principle is called "entasis", and was lost after Ur and not re-discovered
till the Parthenon at Athens.
So the finding and lengthy excavating of Ur took away the skeptics taunts
and claims. Ur became yet another scientific discovery that proves the Bible was accurate.
Let's review the seven scientific discoveries that this writer believes prove the
accuracy of statements found in the Bible:
1) The earth is hung on nothing. Just as discovered
by modern science and as today's space photos so clearly show.
2) There are springs in
the oceans. They were discovered even though only 5% of the ocean bottom has so far been explored. The problem for Bible scoffers
is they were not discovered until 1977.
3) The scientific study of cells, not done until 1855, shows
we do come from our parents cells, they from their parents, and so on. Our first cell was in the
loins of our parents before we were even born.
4) The Bible talked about a circular earth while
mankind still believed the earth was flat.
5) Twentieth century discoveries into the atom reveal
that all matter is mostly empty space, and can be compressed into mere specks of mass, just as the Bible
6) Coriolis discovered that the winds do turn about at the equator; going clockwise in
the Northern Hemisphere, and going counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.
7) There are wind
circuits - twenty-eight of them as diagrammed in the World Book Encyclopedia.
8) Although the
wind blows intermittently with different velocities near ground level, it does blow continuously in the atmosphere;
thus the jet streams and the diagram of 28 circuits.
M 9) The problem for Bible scoffers is these wind
characteristics were not discovered until the early 1800s.
10) After centuries of skeptics taunting
the accuracy of the Bible, the city of Ur was found in 1854. And what a marvelous city it was!
So there you have it
Seven scientific discoveries
this writer says prove the Bible's authority and credibility - prove it had scientific knowledge not available to the
men who wrote it. What do you say?
C. Frazier Spencer
References and Footnotes:
Note: Italics, bold,
and underlining are sometimes added to references for emphasis.
(1) "World Mythology" by Donna
Rosenberg, published 1994 by NTC Pub. Group, Lincolnwood, IL.
(2) "Myths and Legends" by Neil
Philip, published 1999 by DK Publishing, NY.
(3) "Creation Corner" article "Evolution
and Humans are just Animals".
(4) "The Way Life Works" by Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson,
published 1995 Times Books, NY.
(5) "Cell and Molecular Biology" by Gerald Karp, published
by John Wiley and Sons, NY.
(6) "The Medusa and the Snail" by Lewis Thomas, published 1979
by Viking Press, NY.
(7) "Introductary Biology" by Linda R. Berg, published 1997 by Saunders
(8) "Science News" Oct. 24, 1998, article by Sarah Simpson.
From the web site spacedaily.com/news/life-03h.html.
(10)"My Life and Work" by Henry Ford,
published 1973 by Arno Press, Inc. From the original work published in 1922. (This book should be on everyone's to read
(11) "Sex and the Origins of Death" by William R. Clark, published 1996 by Oxford
University Press, NY.
(12) For more details see the article "Evolution vs. Humans are just Animals".
(13) Encyclopedia Americana 2002 edition, article "Earth".
(14) Isaiah 40:22.
According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word for circle means just that, a circle.
Book Encyclopedia 2004 edition, article "Atoms".
(17) "Discover" magazine, columnist
Bob Berman in his column, "Sky Lights".
(18) "Super Nature" by Lyall Watson, Bantam
Books edition published 1974.
(19) Isaiah 40:12
(20) Sorry, I really did read
it, but not realizing it fit in somewhere, did not note the source.
(21) "Vixi: Memoirs of a Non-belonger"
by Richard Pipes, published 2003 by Yale University Press, New Haven and London, CT.