* Too Many Bills: Bob Enyart relates his appearances on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect while reporting on Maher's recent conversation with Bill Nye in which they lie about Christians to convince their ignorant audience of a revisionist history.

Real Science Radio's Excerpts
from the WMAP & Planck Anisotropy of the Universe Papers
with a little help from New Scientist
aka The Big Bang Theory Goes Ker-Planck

* The CMB, NASA's Top 3 Proofs, RSR's #1 Ranking: [Updated in 2018] NASA ranks the CMB (cosmic microwave background) among the top three confirmations of the big bang predictions. (See or click the image, right.) Yet Google ranks rsr.org/bbp #1 among the millions of results for a search on: big bang predictions! So, who's correct in this standoff? NASA? Or Google and RSR? To decide, you can:
- check out today's RSR program on the CMB and the Axis of Evil, or
- see Part II of our BB video (just below), or
- hear our broadcast and/or read our article at rsr.org/bbp.  

Summary: The belief, held by faith by many cosmologists, that God did not create the universe suggests, as codified in their Copernican and Cosmological principles, claims that the Earth is not in a special place. If however, the most expansive scientific observations ever made demonstrate that the universe has, in effect, a north and a south pole, aligned in an uncanny way with the Earth's orbit around the sun, then that would suggest that when God created the heavens and the Earth, that He put the Earth in a special place. Thus, atheistic cosmologists have coined the term Axis of Evil because in their upside down worldview, anything is evil if it is evidence against the big bang and for the God of the Bible.

Click Play for RSR's BB Part 2 on the three main predictions...

* First – The BIG NAMES in Cosmology and Physics Admit It's Philosophy: Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Edwin Hubble, George Ellis, and so many other accomplished scientists admit that it is not observational science, but philosophy, that leads such big bang advocates to claim that the universe has no center (and thus that it is homogenous and isotropic, the same everywhere and in every direction). If you don't know that, read their quotes at rsr.org/cosmological-prinicple. If you've read their comments, and you are still in denial about this, ask God to help you, and He will. Meanwhile, the rest of us may proceed...

* Second – Another Big Name Admits What the CMB Data Seems to Show: Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical), put it this way:

But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong [RSR: That's extreme hyperbole; No operational science would be wrong, only the typical wild guesswork of origins science would be wrong] and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.

* Third – WMAP PROJECT (2001 – 2013): This mission was the result of a partnership between Princeton University and the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and later the ESA Planck spacecraft (2009 – 2013) complemented and greatly enhanced the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) mission to map the CMB. As stated on an official Planck site, "Planck data reveals the presence of subtle anomalies in the CMB pattern that might challenge the very foundations of cosmology."

* The CMB Segment of our BB Video Queued Up: In case you didn't watch Part 2 of RSR's BB video just above, at least check out the CMB segment that's queued up here. Just click...

* Post-show Updates: Unexpectedly, NASA's Voyager 1 & 2, having now both crossed the heliopause and left the solar system as of 2018, have both found, separately, that the solar system's north is aligned with the north of interstellar space, and how this could be is "simply not understood." Separately, regarding the axis of evil, see creationist cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett's Cosmology is Not Even Astrophysics (the last paragraph) and his excellent 2006 article CMB Conundrums.

* New Scientist: Planck shows... axis of evil: This article by Jacob Aron reviews the latest science on the mapping of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The title of the article is Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil. It's about:

… a four-year mission conducted by the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft, which has created the highest-resolution map yet of the entire cosmic microwave background (CMB)… Planck's map greatly improves cosmologists' understanding of the universe, but it does not solve lingering mysteries over unusual patterns in the CMB. These include a "preferred" direction in the way the temperature of the light varies, dubbed the cosmic "axis of evil"…

The high-resolution results from Planck show very strong agreement with cosmological theory. 'The overall conclusion is that standard cosmology is an extremely good match to Planck data,' said Cambridge astrophysicist George] Efstathiou. 'If I were an inflationary theorist I would be extremely happy.'

Cosmologists can't pack up and go home just yet though, as Planck's map has also confirmed the presence of a mysterious alignment of the universe. [RSR: Seems like they are committing a rsr/org/ReMineism.] The "axis of evil" was identified by Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe…

The pattern of hot and cold variations in the CMB should be randomly distributed – and they are when comparing small patches of the universe. At larger scales, however, Planck reveals that one half of the universe has bigger variations than the other. Planck's detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP's, giving cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. "We can be extremely confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very similar features," said Efstathiou.

* CMB Map Resolution Improvement Since 1992: Wow! Via Planck.

arXiv Aug. 19, 2013 Dipole Anisotropy in Integrated Linearly Polarized Flux Density in NVSS Data
Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur - 208016, India

There currently exists considerable evidence in favor of a large scale anisotropy in the Universe with the preferred axis pointing roughly in the direction of Virgo, close to the CMBR dipole [that is, within margins of error, which dipole itself is much larger than expected by the Doppler effect]. Furthermore it seems very unlikely that systematic effects would pick the same direction in so many different observations, i.e. radio polarizations orientations (Jain & Ralston 1999), optical polarizations (Hutsemekers 1998), CMBR quadrupole and octopole (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2004), radio number counts (Blake & Wall 2002; Singal 2011) and radio polarization flux (present work). In all likelihood this alignment of axes (Ralston & Jain 2004) is caused by a physical effect.
(Tiwari and Jain, 2013, pp. 1, 13)

arXiv Aug. 8, 2013: Testing the Dipole Modulation Model in CMBR
Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur - 208016, India, Pranati K. Rath and Pankaj Jain

…there are several observations which suggest a preferred axis pointing roughly towards Virgo [1–6]. One also observes a hemispherical anisotropy [7–13], where the power extracted from two different hemispheres shows significant difference from one another. The power in each hemisphere is estimated by making a harmonic decomposition of the masked sky. … This direction is nearly perpendicular to the direction towards Virgo. These observations suggest a violation of the cosmological principle… the hemispherical anisotropy found in [7–12] cannot be consistently attributed to the dipole modulation model, Eq. 1.1. The true anisotropy model is likely to be more complicated and might contain higher order multipoles.

TELETHON FREE GIFT: RSR airs only by the financial support of our listeners! Make a one-time or monthly donation to keep Bob Enyart and Fred Williams on the air. To say thanks, we'll send you Ray Comfort's really fun and revealing DVD, Evolution vs. God.

* Dragon "Legends" Reveal Dinosaurs: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams review Vance Nelson's great book, Dire Dragons, documenting the widespread historical evidence of the co-existence of man and dinosaurs. With the support of university infrastructures and a lot of research money, it often took paleontologists decades, even a century, to correctly interpret the actual form of various dinosaurs from their fossilized bones, yet predating modern science, cultures around the world accurately depicted many kinds of dinosaurs. This is one observation among many powerful arguments showing that human beings recorded their sightings of actual dinosaurs.

* Dragon Legends Convinced Carl Sagan They Reveal Dinosaurs: Carl Sagan in his book, The Dragons of Eden, wrote, "The pervasiveness of dragon myths in the folk legends of many cultures is probably no accident." Since Sagan was himself an old-earth dinosaur :) he had to reject the obvious conclusion, that cultures around the world saw dinosaurs firsthand. Instead, he concocted a bizarre explanation that is contradicted by the collective experience of billions of human beings (and animals). Sagan, trying to explain the persistence and accuracy of legends and depictions that appear to refer to dinosaurs, claimed that since we evolved from animals that lived 165 million years ago, we inherited their memories of dinosaurs complete with accurate anatomy, habitat, and behavior, of many different kinds of these reptiles, which dwelt on land, in the air, and in the sea. Wow.

* Most Recent Version: See the latest version of this program and written show summary at RSR.org/scientists-doubting-darwin.

* Nobody Doubts Darwin, Except for This Guy: When anyone claims that all scientists are Darwinists, they are omitting neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and the crew over at The Third Way. And they also omit all the others who have gone out of their way to declare their doubt about Darwin.

* Nobody Doubts Darwin, Except for These Guys:
- 100 Ph.D.s listed at Australia's creation.com
- 200 scientists with master's degrees or Ph.D.s listed over at AiG
- 300 medical doctors at Physicians & Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
- 500 Ph.D. scientists at the Korean Association of Creation Research
- 600 advanced degreed scientist at the Creation Research Society
- 800 scientists who signified their opposition at DissentFromDarwin.org
- 3,000 scientists and professors, nearly, (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees as named online by Dr. Jerry Bergman

* Another Scholar Doubting Darwin: Remember that the famed atheist professor Thomas Nagel wrote Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false!

They are also omitting those who doubt Darwin who have been identified by research including:
- 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class
- 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution."
- 570,000 medical doctors in the U.S., specialists in applied science, say God brought about or directly created humans. Whereas Darwinsim is dominated by storytelling, the field of medicine is an actual applied science (see definition and applied science section below) within biology that is practiced by highly educated professionals. Thus it is significant that 60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings as we are.

* Honorable Mention: It is observed that "authorities" should not be counted, but weighed. So weigh them. (The two-thirds of a million Ph.D.s, professors, and advanced degreed scientists doubting Darwin listed here would weigh more than 100 million pounds. :) Speaking of gravitas, however, for honorable mention, consider the RSR list of the many fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, who rejected naturalistic origins, including Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, Huygens, Newton, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Dalton, Faraday, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, and Carver.

* Answering the Atheist's Argument from Authority: This list above is not an argument from authority. Rather, it is a REBUTTAL to logical fallacy committed often by evolutionists (including Krauss) when they commonly make their invalid argument from authority. There is nothing wrong with quoting an expert on a topic. But evolutionists frequently use the bait and switch tactic of identifying experts in one topic and then without acknowledging the switch, proceeding as though they were experts in a different field, which is one way of committing the logical fallacy of an invalid argument from authority. Being a pilot doesn't mean that you know how to make an airplane, let alone gravity. So we should take care not to commit the logical fallacy of argument from an invalid authority, like this:

Scientists are experts in operational physics, chemistry, and biology.
Most scientists believe in naturalistic origins.
Therefore naturalistic origins must be true.

Aside from the severe misrepresentation that "all scientists are Darwinists", it is also a logical fallacy to imply that success in operational science translates to deserved trust in origins. Real Science Radio suggests, don't believe lies.

* Summary of the DI's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism: The Discovery Institute describes the hundreds of scientists who have signed their statement of dissent as made up of those holding "doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley.  Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel."

* Of Course There's Overlap: Admittedly these lists contain some overlap but the orders of magnitude difference in the numbers indicate that the vast majority are not duplicates.

* Scientists Doubting or Rejecting the Big Bang: Unlike as with Darwinism, big bang cosmology is relatively insulated from real-world feedback because millions of professionals do not work in related fields as with biology. If hundreds of thousands of professionals received actual astronomical feedback in the same way that farmers, veterinarians, and physicians do daily while working with biological systems, then surveys might show a picture similar to that regarding Darwinism. That is, if professionals interacted daily with all the astronomical data that challenges and undermines the expectations of big bang theory, then the world would likely see a similar percentage of professionals in related scientific fields rejecting the big bang too. Cosmological dogma, further removed from human observation than are theories on anatomy, "benefits" in a backward sense, from the herd mentality that reinforces the tendency to believe authorities because most people lack daily experience with first-hand evidence that may contradicting (or support) the received account. Thus when that theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), Lawrence Krauss told RSR that, "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang", he of course was ignoring all the apparently contradictory evidence.  So he asks expects everyone to "Trust us", i.e., trust those with the inscrutable knowledge. Scientists who doubt or outright reject the big bang include:
- acclaimed astronomer Fred Hoyle, father of stellar evolution theory (whom Stephen Hawking pointed out also rejected Darwin; see biography, A Life in Science)
- acclaimed astrophysicists Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge
- the hundreds of members of the young earth Creation Research Society
- the National Academy of Sciences which in 2003 published an alternative model for a bounded universe
- hundreds more scientists who are signing the extraordinary declaration at cosmologystatement.org.

* RSR Reports on the Int'l Creation Conference: Fred Williams continues from Part I his interview of Bob Enyart who attended the 7th ICC in Pittsburgh a couple weeks ago. A few hundred conferees, including many engineers and scientists from some of the world's most prestigious secular institutions, enjoyed an amazing week of the scientific exploration of God's creation. Bob and Fred discuss the conference proceedings that may be of greatest interest to the Real Science Radio audience.

* Courage in Crosswords: A Real Science Radio listener from Indiana sent in a screenshot of his New York Times crossword puzzle app...

"If the government were
actually reading my emails,
I'd have hope
for this country."
-Bob Enyart, rsr.org

Today's Resource:
Please browse the Science Department
of our online store and help keep
Real Science Radio on the air!

* Fred Interviews Bob on the 7th Int'l ICC: Along with a few hundred others, including many engineers and scientists from some of the world's most prestigious secular institutions, Bob Enyart attended the 7th International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh. Fred Williams interviews Bob about the happenings that may be of interest especially to the Real Science Radio audience.

Bob Enyart noticed that while other flood and creation models are knocking themselves out, in the process, though unintended and unstated, they seem to be highlighting the strengths of Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory.

"If the government were actually reading my emails
I'd have hope for this country." -Bob Enyart, rsr.org

* Radiometric Dating: Real Science Radio's Bob Enyart interviews nuclear chemist and text book author Dr. Jay Wile on radiometric dating. A week after interviewing Stephen Meyer on his new book, Darwin's Doubt, Bob handed the book to Jay and asked his guest to read a sentence written by this intelligent design advocate with the Discovery Institute. Meyer wrote that radiometric dating is a straightforward practice. Jay has quite a chuckle with that one. Here's the sentence, from page 109: "Unlike radiometric dating methods, molecular clocks depend on a host of contingent factors." If the Discovery Institute spent a twentieth of the energy that they do looking for evidence against neo-Darwinism, on two other secular doctrines, looking for scientific evidence contrary to the the big bang, and evidence that undermines ancient radiometric dates, they would stun themselves by what they would find! :)

* Meanwhile, Three Years Later: 2016 Show Update. Over at rsr.org/predictions, BOb Enyart and Fred Williams predicted that original dinosaur and other biological tissue will be found largely independent of the claimed age of the fossil. Our prediction has been RECONFIRMED in June 2016! The journal Nature Communications reported original biological material in Gunflint chert allegedly from 1.88 billion years ago in the Proterozoic "Eon" (i.e., layer). Our prediction was first CONFIRMED in 2014 when the Journal of Paleontology reported original soft tissue in Precambrian "beard worms" that are allegedly 530 million years old! (See 60+ similar discoveries.)

* Dr. Wile on RSR about Making Sausage: Recently, Bob Enyart interviewed Wile, who was the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship's speaker, Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry, former asst. professor and researcher on Department of Energy and NSF projects. Dr. Wile spoke on radiometric dating and (surprisingly) variable radioactive half-lives. Here are notes from that program's show summary...

* Atheists Attend this RMCF Event: The Denver Atheists Meetup Group encouraged participants to attend Friday's RMCF event. The whole meeting went splendidly. After Dr. Wile's insightful presentation, especially enjoyable were the questions raised by the atheists in attendance and Dr. Wile's comfortable approach and great answers. My brief dialogue with Dr. Tom Kashuba, a retired atomic spectroscopist, can be read best if you go to the end and read upward :) .

* Atheist Origins -- A Chat with Chauncey: One visitor from the atheist group, Chauncey, spoke for a while with RSR friend Patrick Shamblin and with Bob Enyart. We asked Chauncey to consider two things: 1) If you don't have a theory of origins that accounts for human consciousness, then you don't have a theory (and you don't even have a hypothesis). And 2) That they do not have even a hypothesis on origins is demonstrable by this pattern:
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
- the origin of stars begins with existing protostars and the explosion of existing stars
- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with wildly complex reproducing life
- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from pre-existing alien life
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.

This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists. Consider also the ORIGIN of the process of encoding a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule. Atheists have nothing. And they have nothing, also, for the origin of something as relatively simple as the eye's trochlea (click or just Google: PZ Myers trochlea).

UPDATE -- Published Book Review: The CRSQ creation science journal has published Bob Enyart's review of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt. 

* New York Times Bestselling Author: Bob Enyart interviews old-earth anti-evolutionist Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute on his instant bestseller, Darwin's Doubt. After a dozen conservative talk radio interviews with scientifically challenged show hosts hosts (like Dennis Miller who kept referring to the Caribbean Explosion rather than the Cambrian), Dr. Meyer relaxed and talked science, recognizing, as he said, that this program was "real science radio." Bob concluded asking Dr. Meyer, a leader in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, to keep an eye out in his future research for a particular kind of fossil at the base of the grand canyon. (Remember the Nautiloids!) If you enjoy this program, you may enjoy our follow-up interview during which Stephen Meyer answers his critics.

* Bob's 2011 Comment Prefiguring Meyer: Part II of Stephen Meyer's 2013 book is about "The Cambrian Information Explosion", genes, epigenetics, etc. In a comment to an evolutionist on TheologyOnline.com in 2011, Bob wrote Alate_One, "And as for [Charles Doolittle] Walcott and the Cambrian Explosion, adding to his being stunned by the complexity of life so low in the geologic column, I imagine you've thought through the stunning discoveries in molecular biology that supercharges the 'explosive' part of all that variety?"

* Stephen Meyers is Not a Creationist: Sadly, Dr. Meyer, along with virtually all the Christians in the ID community, rejects the young earth as well as the need to take the scriptural account of the global flood as literal. As a further result, typically, old-earth Christians also reject the literality of many divine interventions taught in the Bible, including about the Tower of Babel, the creation of the Earth before the stars, etc. So, sadly, it is incorrect to refer to them as creationists. Still, we love those guys and pray for them!

* A Shared Antagonist Eugenie Scott: Dr. Meyer seemed interested in the claims made by anti-creationist anthropologist Dr. Eugenie Scott when debating Bob Enyart on national TV. Hear these select soundbites from Eugenie Scott, an adversary of both Meyer's ID community and Enyart's creationist allies. In 1998, answering Enyart's repeated request for her best evidence for evolution, Eugenie said that the non-coding regions of DNA were affirmatively known to be useless, that further research would not show otherwise, and so that Junk DNA was great evidence against the existence of a Creator. (Of course, as offered for decades by virtually the entire evolution community, that is not an argument based on the laws of science, but a metaphysical argument, based on what a Creator may or may not be inclined to do; and the irony of it all, is that the this neo-Darwinian assumption retarded the advancement of science, for many years, as an evolutionary bias set in against recognizing function in the regions of DNA that did not code for protein.

* Another Shared Antagonist Jerry Coyne: Update: Bob Enyart submitted a comment to Jerry Coyne's blog, whyevolutionistrue.com, quoting this infamous anti-creationist who had written, "Note that the DI will continue to ignore negative verdicts [about Meyer's Darwin's Doubt] by scientists like Matzke..." Enyart and Coyne had previously sparred regarding a humourous disagreement over horizontal gene transfer and whether genetic sequencing shows "the tree of life branching in a nice Darwinian way." At any rate, to Coyne's comment about Meyer's book, Enyart added, "Just fyi, if you read the newly released paperback, you'll see that Meyer addresses Matzke's critique at length. For example, Meyer addresses the claim that the hypothetical creatures inferred by conflicting cladograms provide sufficient evidence of the actual existence of such transitional forms." That comment, submitted on May 30, 2014, would have been #22. If you notice that Jerry decides to post Bob's comment, feel free to let us know at Bob@RealScienceRadio.com. 

* RSR Answers Walt Brown Critics & HPT Problems: On today's Real Science Radio program, the first of eleven episodes in our ongoing HPT Answers series, Bob Enyart responds to Baumgardner, Patton, and Faulkner, three creationist critics of Dr. Walt Brown regarding alleged problems with his Hydroplate Theory. Just as you can ask three rabbis a question and get four answers, so too, other than the fundamentals, biblical creationists differ on particulars. Partly because of the popularity of Walt's website, his life's work, In the Beginning, is one of the best-selling creationist books, making Dr. Brown's theory widely supported including by many creation scientists and among rank-and-file creationists, by pastors and homeschool publishers, and among Bible students.

* If Walt Is Wrong -- If Walt Is Right: If Dr. Brown's model of the global flood is incorrect, then he and his supporters have held back the progress of creation science. Conversely of course, if Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory is correct, then those who have opposed his efforts have slowed our progress. If Dr. Brown's theory is correct, then creationists have answers for:
- Why is the crust of the Earth cracked by the continuous 40,000-mile long mid-oceanic ridge? (rupture phase)
- Where did the water come from? (under the crust, divided from the surface water on Day 2 by the raqia/firmament)
- Why did the Moon get so beat up and especially its near side? (most impacts were during retrograde motion)
- Why did the ancient world use a 360-day calendar? (because that's how God created the Earth; 360dayyear.com)
- How did the Earth's rotation speed up by 5.25 days per year? (melting rock became the outer core, shrinking Earth)
- How did the Moon's orbit change from 30 to 29.5 days? (1.2% of debris ejected by the fountains of the great deep) 
- How did harmful radioactivity end up on the Earth? (earthquake lights in the crust produced uranium, thorium, etc.)  
- How did meteorites, comets, and asteroids originate? (the fountains of the deep ejected these deadly mavericks)
- To be continued...

Of course also, if the HPT is correct, then various favorite theories of other creation groups, including ICR's catastrophic plate tectonics, and the canopy theory, and AiG's frozen mammoths hypothesis and their ice age model, are incorrect.

* RSR's List of Answers to Hydroplate Theory Objections: This ongoing Answers series is part of our global flood metaseries available at rsr.org/hpt#metaseries. Many of these objections come from our own List of HPT Objections, just below.
1. List of Answers to Hydroplate Objections Pt 1 (this show, below, addresses Baumgardner and voltage from granite; astronomer Faulkner and the 360-day year; geologist Patton and the origin of limestone)
2. List of Answers to Hydroplate Objections Pt 2 (QuakeFinder's Tom Bleier on electromagnetic quake forecasting toward answering geophysicist John Baumgardner)
3. Josh Spencer Answers HPT Objections (email exchange with a CPT proponent on Pangea, CPT miracles, etc.)
4. Spencer Answers Radioactivity Objections (nuclear engineering Ph.D. on Walt's origin of Earth's radioactivity)
5. Kevin Lea Answers the "Geometry Problem" objection from Baumgardner
6. Kevin Lea Answers the "Pacific Crust" Objection from Dr. Baumgarnder
7. Bryan Nickel Answers the "Linear Crack" Objection from Michael Oard
8. Bob Enyart Answers the false accusation from Don DeYoung that Brown sued ICR
9. Jane Albright Addresses Creation Groups' Opposition including a criticism from Jonathan Sarfati
10. Nickel Answers Oard's' Missing Shoreline and Sediments of Grand Lake
11. Nickel Answers the HPT Heat Problem Objections from Kuban, Reed, Faulkner, & Baumgardner
12. Bob Enyart Answers Faulkner's 360-Day Year Problem
13. Fred Williams Answers the Genesis 1:8 Firmament Objection to the HPT about the raqia
14. The HPT has not been peer-reviewed. Lord-willing, RSR will broadcast this program in December 2021. Until then, feel free to see a summary of the answer to this objection at rsr.org/TNOs#hpt-peer-review.

* Shared RSR Google Spreadsheets on Flood Models: Our List of Answers to HPT Objections includes two spreadsheets. Click these links or screenshots to see them at Google Docs and to see them being discussed click the video times below.
- Bible Material Uniquely Supporting Various Flood Models aka Flood Models & Bible Verses
- Physical Features Requiring Explanation and Flood Models aka Flood Models & Features to Explain.

Bob discusses these two charts in RSR's flood video, at 2:06:00 for the Bible Verses chart and 3:06:45 for the Physical Features chart.

Published HPT Criticisms
- Hydroplate theory: the strongest theory? 2020
- Oard: Analysis of Walt Brown’s Flood Model 2013
- Faulkner: Was the Year Once 360 Days Long? 2012 [Enyart CRSQ reply 2013]
  An Analysis of Astronomical Aspects of the Hydroplate Theory 2013 (Check: Is this the 2013 paper Kuban mentioned re: heat problem?)
  Analysis of Walt Brown’s Model of a Pre-Flood 360-Day Year 2014
 Can One Astronomically Date the Flood within the Hydroplate Model? 2015
- Sarfati: Flood Models and Biblical Realism 2010
- Baumgardner: Flood Science Review Author-to-Author Critique 2011 [RSR reply 2014]
- McIntosh & Taylor, & Edmonson: Flood Models: The Need for an Integrated Approach 2000
- Other? Please email Bob@rsr.org.

YouTube, Forum, Etc. Criticisms
- Dr. Gregg Davidson: Evidence of a Young Earth?
- Joyce Arthur: A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory 1995 (Wikipedia external link)
- Southtown: Hydroplate Theory at ScienceForums.com 2007
- Gerard Jellison: Amazon ITB Review & 150p cmts/debate thread 2009, removed 2015; last 50pp copied by HPT supporter David B. Willis
- Glen Kuban: Brown’s Flood Model is All Wet 2015
- Other: Please email Bob@rsr.org.

* On this First Answers to Hydroplate Objections Program: Joining many on both sides, RSR asks everyone to extend grace to everyone else, as we conduct our own investigation into the objections to the HT, which theory we ourselves hold. For our initial program, we will consider three objections from well-known creationists:
- John Baumgardner, of Los Alamos Nat'l Lab and ICR, on voltages generated in granite.
- Danny Faulkner, former Univ. of South Carolina astronomer, now with AiG, on the 360-day year.
- Don Patton, excavated 500-foot long dinosaur track, exposed fraudulent Ark find, on Walt's limestone claims.

* Don Patton Objection on Limestone: While perhaps not in print, Don Patton, creationist geologist and archaeologist and real-life Indiana Jones has long repeated to people that Dr. Brown claims that, as a result of the fountains of the great deep breaking open during the global flood, the Earth's limestone deposits precipitated out of the atmosphere. In preparation for today's program, to address this unlikely claim, one of our RSR researchers obtained printed copies of all previous seven editions of Walt's In the Beginning along with the current 8th edition. Also, we searched the updated version of Dr. Brown's online Origin of Limestone chapter. After confirming that none of these sources ever claimed that limestone deposits formed by raining down out of the atmosphere, RSR spoke directly with Dr. Brown, who confirmed that he has never made such a claim. To Dr. Patton's credit, when we informed him of this, he indicated that it was important for him to hear this information, and he gladly accepted the correction.

* And Here's the HPT's Actual Explanation for Limestone: In a great 2019 video by Bryan Nickle... 

* Baumgardner Objection on Voltages Generated in Granite: In a 2011 author-to-author critique in the 1600-page Flood Science Review, Dr. John Baumgardner argued (p. 525) that Walt Brown must be wrong about the ability of granite to produce giga-voltages because, "there is no observational evidence that the quartz crystals in granite have ever been aligned as Brown postulates." And that, "This ought to represent a fatal problem for Brown’s claim that such extreme voltages will essentially arise automatically." After a lengthy phone conversation during which Bob Enyart presented the following evidence, Dr. Baumgardner continued to maintain his objection.

* Baumgardner's Objection Answered: In addition to Walt Brown citing explicit reports of quartz alignment in the scientific literature (#6 & #7 below), the smoking gun is the electrical current produced by earthquakes.

1. A Million Amps. 2013 report from National Geographic estimates the strength of the electrical currents produced by earthquakes: "These currents are huge... They're on the order of 100,000 amperes for a magnitude 6 earthquake and a million amperes for a magnitude 7. It's almost like lightning, underground." 2016 Update: Again, video of earthquake lights surface, this time after New Zealand's magnitude 7.8 quake. 2014 Update: A paper in the journal Seismological Research Letters is reported on in USA Today's Scientists find records of rare 'earthquake lights'.
2. USGS, Etc. Since 2010, in the Earthquakes and Electricity section of his online Origin of Earth's Radioactivity chapter, Walt has referenced extensive observational evidence of earthquakes generating electrical currents including from the New Madrid Earthquake, the most powerful to hit the eastern U.S. in recorded history, as reported by the USGS.

* Dr. Giem Takes Bob Back to College: Hear Real Science Radio's Bob Enyart interview Dr. Paul Giem, long-time assistant professor of emergency medicine at Loma Linda University. Having earned a B.A. in chemistry and an M.D., Dr. Giem went on to spend many years researching carbon-14 dating making him highly qualified to grade our RSR Carbon 14 Report! (Make sure to hear Pt. 1 first!)

* RSR Earns an A- from a Tough Professor: He's tough but fair! :) Dr. Giem graded our original RSR 14c report and so we've now made the corrections. Of course we're hoping that now that we've corrected the report, that it is A+ work providing trustworthy information for our RSR audience. And thank you Dr. Giem for your patience with your students and your careful research!

* Three Related Lines of Evidence Shoring Up the Young Earth Interpretation: The interaction between dinosaur soft tissue, unracemized left-handed amino acids, and Carbon 14 must all be explained to understand the true age of the geologic column. (1) Significant amounts of short-lived 14c is measured in diamonds, dinosaur fossils, natural gas, and coal. (2) There's mostly left-handed amino acids (not yet decayed to a 50/50 right-to-left ratio) in chert and dinosaur eggshells. (3) There's flexible and even transparent blood vessels, cells, and even T. rex and hadrosaur DNA (with a half-life of ~521 years) in dinosaur soft tissue fossils. Many such lines of evidence (multiplying as at youngearth.com) undermine the claim by old-earth geologists that the plentiful 14c in "ancient" specimens must come from contamination or neutron capture, and this evidence helps to confirm the young earth interpretation of the data.

* Since Carbon-14 is EVERYWHERE It Can't Be an Anomaly: Carbon 14 doesn't lie. Yet 14c is everywhere it shouldn't be. Unless from a secondary source, like contamination or neutron capture (described below), anything millions of years old should have NO Carbon-14. However, scientists are consistently finding C-14, as reported in 2011 in the journal PLoS One for an allegedly 80-million year old mosasaur, and as reported elsewhere in natural gas, limestone, fossil wood, coal, oil, graphite, marble, the ten dinosaurs described above, and even in supposedly billion-year-old diamonds. A secondary assumption by old-earth scientists proposes that the C-14 in diamonds (coal, etc.) must have come from N-14 (or C-13, etc.) and neutron capture. Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical) told RSR that 14c in allegedly million-year-old specimens is an "anomaly." However, an anomaly is something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. Because modern carbon exists in significant quantities, far above the reliability threshold of the AMS labs doing the tests, these results can no longer be called anomalies! It is now expected that organic specimens supposedly millions of years old will yield maximum C-14 ages of only thousands of years!

To see the full RSR Carbon-14 Report that is being graded by Dr. Giem, just click on over to rsr.org/14c.