Join us in this riveting episode as Fred Williams and Doug McBurney discuss the controversial new article from the Creation Research Society Quarterly that challenges the long-standing Hydroplate Theory. With special guest Pastor Kevin Lee, an expert on the Hydroplate Theory, they delve into the assumptions and scientific basis for these claims, dissecting the arguments with a critical eye and a quest for truth.
In the next quarter, you need to write a retraction to tell your audience that you misled them because that’s what they did.
SPEAKER 02 :
Scholars can’t explain it all away.
SPEAKER 1 :
Get ready to be awed by the handiwork of God. Tune into Real Science Radio.
SPEAKER 02 :
Turn up the Real Science Radio. Keeping it real.
SPEAKER 01 :
Greetings to the brightest audience in the country. Welcome to Real Science Radio. I’m Fred Williams.
SPEAKER 04 :
And I’m Doug McBurney. Fred, it is great to be back with you on Real Science Radio. And this week, we’re joined by our good friend, pastor, Bible teacher, author, and hydroplate expert, Pastor Kevin Lee. Welcome to Real Science Radio.
SPEAKER 05 :
Great to be with you guys again.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, Kevin, it’s great to have you back. You know, we slated you to come on and talk about some of these so-called interstellar objects, such as this recent three Atlas comet that they discovered back in July. And we want to get to that. But instead, there’s a soon-to-be-released article that we have access to before it’s actually released of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. And it’s another Edward Isaacs hit piece on the hydroplate theory. I want to make sure we get to that too.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. Yeah, it sounds like both those subjects will be interesting to your audience.
SPEAKER 04 :
You’ve got to help us unpack some of the claims that the hydroplate theory fails. And I believe that’s from the paper. I can’t remember if it actually says the word fails. Because, well, let’s just jump right into the main point.
SPEAKER 01 :
So it’s titled The Petrological Problem with Hydroplate Theory’s Astronomical Stub Model. which is a mouthful, but basically he’s arguing that because the hydroplate theory says asteroids came from Earth during the flood, they should be made of granite, not olivine, right? There are several assumptions in this article, and Kevin, what a perfect timing for you to be coming on the show, because you are, I think, one of the foremost experts now on the hydroplate theory, and I’d love to get your take on this article. I had a lot of problems with it, and I know I’m biased, but To me, right away, there was major issues I saw with this article. It upset me in a way it probably shouldn’t, but I want you to dive into this because, again, there’s assumptions built in, and I think you’re going to be the best to elucidate what those are.
SPEAKER 04 :
Maybe we could start by asking the question that the paper seems to imply. Does the hydroplate theory insist that asteroids, comets, and TNOs are made of granite? No, never has.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, well. But that’s what they assert. And you were right, Doug, when you said, this is the final sentence of this article. The hydroplate theory astronomical submodel simply fails to explain the petrological data which calls into question the HPT system as a whole. Isaacs, 2023. And so… The height of plate theory never says that all the debris that was jettisoned when the fountains of the great deep burst up in one day and the crack widened from that rupture of one day and sent debris into space. Nowhere has it ever said that it’s all granite. And in fact, Walt Brown and the advocates of the hydroplate theory know that there’s going to be mantle material that would have also been weakened as a result of the supercritical water dissolving the subterranean floor. And that mantle material, along with building itself up and starting the ridge and the water escaping to the crack, would have eroded the mantle material. There would have been a lot of mantle material jettisoned into space. So it’s going to be mantle and granite. And like we said, even before the show, we don’t even know that the hydroplate theory makes an assumption that the ground that we’re standing on of the crustal material is that way all the way down to the bottom to the subterranean floor. But we don’t know that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, no, no, no, no. Stop, stop right there. Stop the presses. Are you saying that hydroplate advocates are willing to say publicly that we don’t know everything?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, we don’t know anything. There has to be assumptions. And then when you look at the data that comes to us from space, what’s the data saying? All the data from space screams that comets, asteroids, trans-Neptunian objects, what they call SSBSs in this article. SSSBs. SSSBs.
SPEAKER 04 :
See, there’s too many letters. See, that’s not going to work. I’m going to stick with catnose. I like that one better.
SPEAKER 05 :
Comets, asteroids, trans-Neptunian objects. I like that one.
SPEAKER 04 :
It rolls off the tongue easier than trying to keep track of which S and B comes before which S and B. That’s just silly.
SPEAKER 05 :
All the data screams that, and in fact, I said this to Dr. Brownlee at the University of Washington, not a hydroplate theory advocate, not a creationist, I told him in a conversation, this has been, you know, I’m repeating this from other presentations we’ve had with you guys, but that Dr. Brownlee, everything that we’re learning about space from your Stardust Probe, etc., can be explained by the Earth jettisoning material into space that became comets, asteroids, and TNOs. And he didn’t dispute that. He didn’t hang up on me. He didn’t. I’m not going to say he’s going to say that’s where it came from. He can’t do that. But he didn’t think I was an idiot for saying that because the answer, the result is, yes, our evidence is that that’s true, including amino acids, all the amino acids necessary for life, all the nucleotides necessary for life, that they’re floating rock piles, that they’re rounded up boulders, that they have. crystalline minerals, and clays and other things that can only form in the presence of liquid water. I mean, I could go on and on and on of hard science that would be explained most easily by the Earth jettisoned material at some time in the past that coalesced into comets, asteroids, and TNOs.
SPEAKER 01 :
Let’s get back to the article and the first assumption they make about how the hydroplate theory says that granite had to have been shot into space. And it also makes assumptions about the floor of the crest, right, basalt floor. Kevin, are there issues with that?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I mean, the author of this article, which we know nothing about, he’s Edward A. Isaacs. We don’t know his degrees. We don’t know anything about him, which is kind of strange.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, and, you know, being somewhat familiar with the creation, science, literature, going back ever since I’ve known Bob Enyart, going back 20 years, this guy seems to have come out of nowhere, Edward A. Isaacs. and he gets published time after time after time. Now it just seems a little weird. That’s all.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah. And he gets published with HTP hydroplate theory, hit pieces. And when you read it, you go, this guy doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. And this, this article is that in spades because there was the eighth edition when it was printed. It has one picture of, of the fact that there’s the crust, and then there’s the subterranean chamber, and then there’s magma, and then there’s basalt. There’s basalt, and then there’s mantle. Walt really regretted that that got published with that. There’s a reason why he thought that. It was mostly because of what was happening in the Pacific Ocean. But he said, no, the subterranean chamber floor was mantle. It’s been that way since 2008. And so this Edward Isaacs guy, he sits there and says, well, Walt says that it was basalt, and basalt doesn’t make olivine, and there’s olivine in space, so that makes the hydroplate theory fail on its face. And yet, Walt hasn’t said that since 2008. He says that the subterranean chamber floor was mantle, and that the mantle was dissolved by the supercritical water, just like the sealing of the granite crust, and that It doesn’t say, I’m trying to think, it says that mantle and granite crust would have been jettisoned into space when the fountains of the great deep burst up. And so the whole premise is by him quoting 2008 information. And yet he knows that since 2008, Walt also increased the crustal, the guess, based on science, the guess that the crust was more like 60 miles thick. So he recognizes that the crust thickness, so he’s gotten an updated source of the hydroplate theory in one aspect, but he sticks with the 2008 stuff to make his hit piece, which is… What I don’t like, too, is he references a 2019 hydroplate reference.
SPEAKER 01 :
2019, right?
SPEAKER 05 :
And there is no such thing. There is no such thing. The ninth edition, as soon as Walt published the eighth edition, then the website became the ninth edition. Immediately after publishing the eighth edition, the website had the mantle was the subterranean floor, not the salt.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, so… And I don’t mean to interrupt, but it seems that Dr. Baumgardner did update Mr. Isaacs about the crustal thickness, but maybe failed to update him about the nature of the floor of the subterranean chamber.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right. And we’re guessing that John Baumgartner is the source behind Isaac’s education, which would explain why, because Baumgartner does this all the time. At one point, Walt had the thickness of the crust at 10 miles. And even recently, he wants the big deal that Walt said it was 10 miles. That’s impossible. No, John, he updated his theory. And it was based on scientific reasons. At first, it was 10 miles for Walt because that was the amount of crustal material that would erode to create the mile-thick sediments on the continents, which Baumgartner and CPT can’t explain. And then when he realized all the evidence from space was showing that the comets and asteroids and TNOs were likely to have been jettisoned from the Earth, he increased the amount of crustal thickness that would have accounted, help account for the amount of mass that’s out there. But it’s not all, he doesn’t say it’s all crust. He knows, Walt knew, and by the way, the audience should know that Walt passed recently and the memorial service for him is at the end of November, which I’ll be going to in Phoenix. And so Walt knew, advocates have known for over a decade, 15 years, 17 years. And yet he wants to make a hit piece based on obsolete information. Like I told you guys, to me, it’s like Chevy big dealing that you don’t buy a Ford in 2025. Don’t buy a Ford because you know what Ford does? You have to get out of the car and go in the front, stick a hand crank onto the crankshaft and turn it over to get it to start. And how ridiculous is that when we can start the car by turning a key or pushing a button? That’s what Isaacs is doing. Which to me is incompetence, if not bordering on deliberate deception.
SPEAKER 04 :
Oh, well, those are strong words, but I feel almost compelled now. And I don’t know if I’m allowed to do this, Fred, but… But there has been an email exchange between HPT supporters and Dr. Baumgartner himself. And so I’ve got a couple things that I want to spring on the world right now. So I have a theory. So everyone wonders about Edward A. Isaacs. He’s a bit of a mystery man. And you might wonder, what does the A stand for in Edward A. Isaacs? And I have a theory that the A in Edward A. Isaacs stands for John R. Baumgartner. That’s what I think that A stands for. And Dr. Baumgartner, by the way, and I can back this up with copies of emails from Dr. Baumgartner, he has disparaged hydroplate theory in general. He’s called it a gigantic scam. He accused Walt Brown of deception. He calls the HPT theory utterly bogus, which is the kindest, most uncontroversial thing he said. He dismissed the accurate predictions as meaningless and worthless in writing. He compared HPT supporters… to flat earth advocates. He accused HPT supporters of allowing the devil to mess with our minds. He accused us of wild storytelling. I believe he accused Walt Brown personally of wild storytelling. Called the hydroplate theory absurd. Accused hydroplate advocates of executing a satanic assault against creation science. And then accused Walt Brown of being a false teacher, a deliberate deceiver who spun fables. This is in writing. This is John Baumgartner’s words against Walt Brown personally, some HPT advocates personally, and HPT in general. And I’ve just got to say, having read the paper from Edward John R. Baumgartner Isaacs, I’m tempted to wonder if Mr. Isaacs is deliberately deceiving or deliberately spinning fables at this point. Yeah. I wonder. Yeah. I’m not ready to accuse, but it does make me wonder.
SPEAKER 05 :
It appears that way. Yeah. And, you know, we oftentimes say, well, tell me how you really feel about the hydroplate theory, Dr. Brokman. Yeah. How many more synonyms of vitriol does he have to make up?
SPEAKER 01 :
And let me interject in here really quick, too. So if you think about what’s the foundation of the hydroplate theory, Walt Brown started with the Bible. There’s plenty of biblical references there. to water stored up for judgment, water beneath your surface. I could go on and on. What does Bob Gardner’s CPT model start with? He said this. Bob Inyart wrote this down when he said it at a conference, that he wants to get plate tectonics into the Bible. He’s not starting with the Bible. He’s starting with a secular, old earth idea. I will repeat that because there’s some CPT advocates that say, oh, plate tectonics isn’t an old earth idea. Yes, it is. I don’t know how you can say it’s not. It’s secular geology’s way to get more millions of years into the Bible on these slow-moving plates, all based on highly interpretive, speculative data that you can get all kinds of answers depending on the answer you want based on the data. And I know this might be a little bit going too far, but I think they play fast and loose with flimsy data. And that’s where it’s hard for me to hear his criticisms and the things he says about Walt Brown. When he himself starts with a secular old earth idea, and then he builds it upon a model that has virtually no possibility of being accurate. And I do have experience with modeling. I was the modeling lead at Micron for five years. The stuff we modeled was vastly less complex than what he tried to model with a piece of software. And here’s the thing with his model, and it was how CBT got into the mainstream of creation. I know it for a fact because I went to all the conferences. It was always his presentation on his model. His model, if anything, it shows that it isn’t true because in order to fix it, he has to invoke numerous miracles. His model would never see the light of day in any boardroom, in any design room across the entire world in engineering. And what’s upsetting to me, and I’ve said this before on the show, we have too many geologists and geophysicists that are not listening to engineers. In a lot of cases, in the case of this article, common sense. You can read the article and know right away they’re making two major assumptions that rely again on flimsy data, all interpretive.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, well, Fred, Fred, you know what? We need to bring this back because I don’t want them to accuse us of playing fast and loose. What are the two major assumptions? And let’s get to the olivine controversy because we need to address that directly. That is the main point of the paper.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, so there’s a second assumption. And, Kevin, I’d like you to address that one. And that’s the olivine in these SSSBs. What do we call them? Cats? Catnose. Catnose.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. Comets, asteroids, TNOs. Yes. That’s what they’re talking about, small body stuff. But olivine was expected. Dr. Brown wrote a prediction of what would be found on the Stardust space probe, including olivine. Dr. Brown predicted olivine would be found. Olivine was found. And it surprised Dr. Brownlee of the University of Washington, not Dr. Brown. Dr. Brownlee, University of Washington. What surprised Dr. Brownlee even more was that they found glycine. And he and I talked on the phone as a result of finding glycine. He admitted to me he was shocked to find an amino acid glycine. Well, since then, they have found all amino acids necessary for life on Bennu and Ryugu. They have found all of the nucleotides for DNA and RNA. on Ryugu and Bennu. They found bacteria on Ryugu, but they want to blame it on contamination of the clean room. Hydroplate theory advocates say, no, you can’t blame it on the clean room because it’s what you found on Ryugu. And it was a hibernated bacteria jettisoned into space. And they know that bacteria that is jettisoned, bacteria can go into hibernation and be in space And for hundreds of years, it doesn’t matter that the environment’s there, it can reculture inside the lab. And it cultured inside the lab. They got it into a condition where it had oxygen and other things, and they were able to culture it. And they want to blame the lab because if they don’t blame the lab, they have to say somehow a bacteria identical to Earth… was able to evolve on an asteroid that’s millions of years old. So they cannot say that it came from Ryugu. So it has to be a clean room. Our prediction of how to play theory advocates is they will always have a bad clean room. No matter how many samples they go and get, they’re all going to come back.
SPEAKER 04 :
You know, I was going to say that the evolutionary biology community is famous for spinning the wildest fables in the history of fables. But even that one, that’s too much for them to pull off. They wouldn’t even try that one despite their history of enormous…
SPEAKER 01 :
So guys, help me out with this one, though. Aren’t there secular scientists that also say, well, no, that is life, and that’s how life got seeded here. And the creationist community, again, I’m going to say articles against HPT in this case, they claim that there is contamination on the meteorites that we find that have bacteria. There has to be contamination. Because there was a recent article in one of the creation journals on that very fact. In fact, our friend Dr. Royal Truman was a co-author. but they actually find it now on Bennu, right, Kevin? They’re actually finding this. This isn’t just on meteorites.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, and see, in fact, when I gave the presentation in Nebraska, and this is at hydroplate.org, you can look at the presentation that I gave to a creation group in Nebraska. where I explain how they say that this is the building blocks of life. And there was a guy who had, for years, for years and years, they were finding meteorites with… amino acids, bacteria, stuff like this. And they were whining to say, well, we just didn’t get to that meteorite that landed on terra firma, you know, terrestrial. And therefore the bacteria got in here, even though we’re digging down deep inside of these things and opening it up and we see minerals that form in liquid water. And they’re saying, well, how could, how could this all happen? And now that they found it on Bennu and Ryugu, They’re sitting there saying, and they won’t do it with the bacteria. They won’t go bacteria because they can’t go bacteria. But they are saying the building blocks of life, the nucleotides, the amino acids, they somehow formed out there in the near absolute zero vacuum of space on these asteroids. And the asteroids that hit the Earth in the millions of years ago, they gave the building blocks of life. But they really can’t go that. And that all evolved into this bacteria that is common on Earth. And so we went through that whole thing where you see this guy saying, now we know it wasn’t contamination. We did find these amino acids. We did find these things on meteorites. And it wasn’t because it got contaminated by landing on Earth.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah. And so the seculars have their story that they tell. The creation scientists have, well, we all make assumptions and we’re all a bit of spinners of stories and trying to explain things. But when it comes down to what does the scientific evidence we have, what does it indicate? Not going to say we know, but here’s what caught my attention about the article is is that it points out olivine as the Achilles heel of the hydroplate theory. And when you go and do a word search through the ninth edition, which you can do, olivine is prominently mentioned throughout the book, and it’s not mentioned as if it’s not expected to be found. And so Walt Brown didn’t avoid the topic of olivine in the book.
SPEAKER 01 :
No. He predicted it would be found. Before we do that, let me read the direct quote from the article, and then we’ll deal with this, because this is the other big assumption Isaacs makes. So here’s the quote. It is believed that the vast majority of SSSBs are composed dominantly of olivine. And then he cites several articles. He has several references. That SSSBs are composed dominantly of olivine. And so I want to get to that one. Okay. Okay.
SPEAKER 04 :
And before you go on, Fred, I have to quote from the abstract. It says that SSSBs are predominantly olivine in composition. It says they are. Yeah. Which I don’t know how you say that. How much stuff do we have, Dr. Lee, or Kevin, I know you’ve studied. Do we have enough stuff to say that we know what catnose are made of?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, let’s eliminate meteorites because they’re iron nickel for, you know, they’re heavy, heavy meteorites. And we talked before the show about why they’re kind of lone rangers in the asteroid aspects of becoming meteorites ultimately. But of all the samples that we brought back from VIL-2, Itokawa, Ryugu, and Bennu. We have in possession on Earth from these catnips 4.5 ounces. Ounces? Ounces of material. We have, you know, spacecraft have used light spectrometry to find out what’s in the comet tail, what’s in the surface of an asteroid and stuff. And they do see olivine. Not surprising, they see olivine. But you don’t know predominantly what something is made out of when you have five ounces in your hands and you only have spectrometry of what’s on the surface. There’s going to be our prediction, hydroplate theory prediction would be when you get down into the center of the asteroid, you’re going to find bigger boulders up to 200 meters. there’s a reason for that that i won’t get into and that was the seed rock that caused all the debris that was jettisoned from the earth to come and what’s going to be on the surface is the last pulverized dust that would be landing on the surface and that’s exactly what you find
SPEAKER 04 :
So that makes sense with gravity, that there’s a big rock that eventually attracts smaller rocks and then dust. And so what you’re going to have on the surface is powder. And that’s what we’re seeing primarily. We haven’t really gone down deep to find out. So, by the way, five ounces, that’s like a half a cup of flour. That’s not a lot.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah. And secularists and hydroplate theory advocates would say that there’s billions of tons of catnose out there, and we’re going to make – and so these guys have the – I mean, how could a professional scientist make a bold statement like that without any evidence to support the statement?
SPEAKER 01 :
Without any research. And, you know, we’ve talked about AI before, and I use AI, and I know that it has issues, but there’s a lot you can get using it. When I saw that claim, both claims, you know, both assumptions, we’re dealing with assumption number two on the olivine. Here’s what AI said. So I put in his quote. And it says that that’s an oversimplification, and it says the composition of SSSBs is diverse. And then it has a list here of what they think something might be made of. For example, C-type asteroids might be 75% of, well, actually what it says is 75% of it is hydrated, silicates, carbon, and clay, not olivine-dominant. Yes, type asteroid, 17%, silicate rock, some olivine and pyroxene, M-type asteroids, 8%, metallic iron, nickel, etc. It says, so while olivine is common, it’s not predominant in these SSSBs. Yeah, he claims it’s predominant. It’s really… the science here is how this got, how did, how did this get through peer review guys? I’m sorry.
SPEAKER 04 :
Oh, there you go, Fred. Just come right out and say it. Hey, one of the, one of the best things that helping me in my life and my career to come to the knowledge of the truth is when someone has smacked me in the face with myself, embarrassing myself in public, which I think Edward Isaac’s here. I mean, this is embarrassing.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, we’re running out of time in this broadcast, so go to our website to catch the rest of this program, realsignsradio.com.
SPEAKER 02 :
Intelligent Design and DNA That’s what I’m talking about.
