December 11, 2018
Note from Pastor Kevin Lea: This is a very significant discovery and extremely baffling to big bang scientists. However, finding hydrated minerals on an asteroid is not surprising to those with a knowledge of Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory explanation of their origin. More at the end of the article.
This mosaic image of asteroid Bennu is composed of 12 images collected on December 2nd by the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft from a range of 24 km (15 miles).
NASA GSFC / Univ. of Arizona
NASA’s Osiris-REX spacecraft just arrived at asteroid Bennu on December 3rd. And the probe is already unearthing exciting details about its new home. Hydrated minerals on Bennu’s surface indicate that rocks on the asteroid once interacted with water.
“It’s one of the things we were hoping to find,” said Amy Simon (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) in a December 10th press conference at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Washington, DC. “This is evidence of liquid water in Bennu’s past. This is really big news.”
As Osiris-REX approached Bennu, the spacecraft scanned the asteroid from afar. Two of its instruments measure how much the surface emits and reflects different wavelengths of light, a diagnostic tool for determining what atoms and molecules are present.
Those spectrometers picked up the presence of hydroxyls, molecules that contain oxygen and hydrogen atoms bonded together. The mission team suspects that these molecules are locked up in clay minerals, which means that at some point in Bennu’s past, water soaked its rocks.
Bennu itself is too small to have ever hosted liquid water. However, researchers suspect that the roughly 500-meter-wide (0.3-mile) space rock is actually a chunk of a much larger asteroid, knocked off long ago. The finding suggests that liquid water existed at some point on Bennu’s home world.
To read this article in its entirety, go to: https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/osiris-rex-finds-hints-of-past-water-on-asteroid-bennu/
Note from Pastor Kevin Lea: UPDATED JAN 17, 2019
It amazes me how the NASA scientist now say evidence of water was something they were hoping to find when they go on to say that the asteroid is too small to have held water. How were they expecting to find something that can’t be? I suspect this is a spin to cover up their surprise.
There is one theory on the origin of comets and asteroids that easily explains these observations. Dr. Walt Brown (M.I.T. doctorate in mechanical engineering) presents a plausible and scientifically sound case in his on-line book at creationscience.com. Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory explanation for Noah’s flood is consistent with science and the biblical account in every detail. His chapters on the Origin of Asteroids and Origin of Comets, will leave the reader with an understanding of why it is no surprise to find evidence of water on Bennu.
If his theory on the origin of asteroids is correct, then all asteroids will be found to have originated in the presence of water. Also, the material that is brought back from Bennu will be consistent with what was brought back from the Wild2 comet by the Stardust space probe.
At the time (2006), Dr. Brownlee of the University of Washington was also surprised at what Stardust captured from Wild2, and stated to an audience (which included me) that he didn’t know when he or anyone else would be able to explain how minerals very common to earth and which only form in the presence of water, heat, and pressure, could have become part of the comet.
After the lecture, I talked to him and gave him a copy of Dr. Brown’s email to me that Brown sent the day before Stardust landed. In it, Dr. Brown predicted what would be found when they opened up the sample capsule at the space center. What he predicted was exactly what was discovered. I then gave Dr. Brownlee a copy of Dr. Brown’s Origin of Comets chapter.
How long will it take for the scientific community to abandon their broken Big Bang paradigm and embrace the science that refutes it? Probably never, however there is another paradigm that is consistent with the scientific evidence.
God’s word states that the biblical flood of Noah started when (on one day), all the fountains of the great deep were broken up causing it to rain globally for 40 days and nights, and where the water continued to increase on the earth until the 150th day (Genesis 7:11-24).
This implies that there was a large body of water under the crust of the earth that erupted out when the crust somehow ruptured. Dr. Brown has shown that before the flood, tidal pumping forces of the moon’s gravity on this subterranean ocean of water would have heated the water to above supercritical temperature and pressure.
The subsequent rupture of the crust would have allowed this pressurized water to escape with extreme, supersonic velocity. As it did, some of the expelled water and material from earth were ejected into space at escape velocity causing it to go into orbit around the sun. What is being found on Bennu is what has stayed there to this day, but the water has evaporated/sublimated out and been swept into space by the solar wind and lack of gravity to keep it on Bennu.
Tragically, the now discredited Big Bang theory along with Darwinian evolution paradigm have handicapped the NASA scientists from seeing the obvious, even when it is poking them in the eye.
This discovery adds to the number of fulfilled scientific predictions that Dr. Brown has made over the years, as noted in his book. Those who have followed his work have come up with the cliché that “all scientists work for Walt Brown”. Nations and scientists have spent billions of dollars and countless man hours on science projects to prove evolution and the Big Bang only to have the results of these projects dispel the myth of evolution and instead support the biblical premise of divine creation followed by a global flood; a flood that affected not only this earth, but the solar system that we live in.
For those interested in reading Dr. Brown’s work, you can do so by going to his online book here:
PS – Tragically, many Christians who search for answers about creation and Noah’s flood have not heard of Dr. Brown or his theory, even though they may subscribe to Answers in Genesis (AiG), Creation Research Society (CRS), Creation Ministries International (CMI), or the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). How could this be when a Google search on: “creation and the flood”, “origin of asteroids”, “origin of comets”, etc., which are all related to Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory, are either the first hit or on the first page of hits pointing to Dr. Brown’s online book? Information published by these other creation organizations do not earn anywhere near the same interest that is implied by these search results.
It is my opinion that the main reason for their censorship of Dr. Brown’s work is that most of these organizations have embraced an unbiblical theory for the flood of Noah called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT). Many have pointed out to these supposedly biblically based organizations that CPT is both unscientific and is not consistent with the biblical account of the flood (which means it cannot be true). But they continue to prop it up in their museums, DVDs and books anyway, thus deceiving all those who are drawn into their product selling net.
Dr. Walt Brown’s theory is consistent with the Bible in every detail, and makes so much more sense to people than CPT, which is why it scores so well on Google searches. Since the hydroplate theory is available for free at creationscience.com as an online book, it competes with their CPT and related products that they sell. Maybe this is why they feel like they must continue to falsely malign Dr. Brown and his work.
Many are convinced by these organizations to discount Dr. Brown’s work when they accuse Brown of not submitting his work to peer review. By peer review, they mean submit his book to them for their critique. This is like saying Nikola Tesla’s ideas about alternating current should not have been considered because he did not submit them to Thomas Edison (father of direct current) for peer review. Edison was sincerely convinced he was right about the use of direct electrical current and that Tesla was a fool to try and build the nation’s electrical grid using alternating current. History has proven that Edison was sincerely wrong. But Edison took his disagreements with Tesla to a personal level doing everything possible to discredit Tesla for the sake of protecting his own Edison Empire and wealth. See these Ten ways Edison treated Tesla like a jerk.
History is also showing that ICR, AiG, CMI, CSRQ and others are copying Edison’s unethical treatment of Tesla in the way they treat Dr. Brown and his Hydroplate Theory.
For example, in October of 2017, Dr. Steve Austin, who was formerly the lead researcher for ICR, was asked by a person attending a lecture he was giving about the Grand Canyon what he thought about Dr. Brown’s 42 page chapter on the same subject. Dr. Austin’s response, according to someone who was there and conveyed it to me, was that his (Austin’s) book was peer reviewed but Dr. Brown’s was not.
I find this incredible considering Dr. Steve Austin has known for decades that he plagiarized some aspects of Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory discoveries that unlocked the enigmas of the Grand Canyon’s origin, which Brown published in 1989.
Austin then put the items he chose to plagiarize into his 1990-1992 Grand Canyon Guide books, then later into his book on the Grand Canyon (after some deceptive changes in order to try and cover-up his theft).
But since Dr. Steve Austin is an adherent to the unbiblical and unscientific CPT theory explanation for the flood of Noah, the information that he stole from Brown does not and cannot allow the reader of his book to come away with a scientifically sound understanding of how the Grand Canyon was formed. Dr. Brown’s theory and book, based on his own discoveries, does provide an easy to understand explanation, from cause to effect.
So ICR, AiG, CMI, CRSQ contend that Dr. Brown should submit his Grand Canyon chapter to a peer (Dr. Steve Austin) for review? – a person who plagiarized from Dr. Brown, lied about it, falsely accused Dr. Brown of plagiarizing from him, attempted in many deceitful ways (with the help of the late Henry Morris Jr. – the founder of ICR) to cover up his plagiarism of Dr. Brown’s discoveries, and then even spread slander that Dr. Brown threatened to sue Dr. Steve Austin and ICR. This slanderous defamation of Dr. Brown’s character has been spread through ICR (Steve Austin, Dr. John Whitcomb, Dr. John Baumgardner ), AiG (Mark Looy – Chief Communications Officer), Dr. Don DeYoung of CRSQ, and likely many others that I don’t have documentation on, to the point that I hear it repeated by people who follow creation science apologetics. As the Bible says, slanderous gossip can spread far and wide.
Prov 25:18 A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is like a club, a sword, and a sharp arrow. NKJV
Prov 21:28 A false witness shall perish, but the man who hears him will speak endlessly. NKJV
If any of these organizations tell you to discount Dr. Brown because he hasn’t been peer reviewed by them, ask them if they really think they are qualified to be impartial peers. You can read more about Dr. Austin’s plagiarism and the associated Austin/ICR coverup here: https://calvarypo.org/is-icraig-helping-or-hindering-part-3-updated-october-28-2009/
Finally, Dr. Brown has published dozens of predictions based on his theory’s explanation for the flood of Noah, and many of them have come true. So let’s put Dr. Brown’s ideas to a test pertaining to this news item about the asteroid, Bennu.. If he is right, it should be expected that every space probe that is sent to orbit, land on and collect material from asteroids will find evidence that is consistent with the idea that the material making up the asteroid was ejected from the earth as proposed in Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory.
The following is an email thread between advocates of the HPT about this asteroid news:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 4:01 PM David **** wrote:
Another WWB (Working for Walt Brown) moment. 🙂
You probably already heard about it but I just wanted to make sure you saw it.
From: Bob Enyart <*******>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 4:47:17 PM
To: Walt Brown, Peggy; Bryan Nickel; Kevin Lea; Rob Yardley; Jane Albright; Fred Williams
Subject: Fwd: Water on Bennu; yes, another WWB Discovery!
Hey guys! Clay?! 🙂 So, I wonder if they’ll also end up scooping up any diatoms for the return trip?
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 1:00 PM Rob Yardley ****** wrote:
If they do bring back diatoms, who will be most upset?
A. The Discovery Institute
From: Bob Enyart <*****@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 12:08 PM
To: Rob Yardley
Cc: Walt Brown, Peggy; Bryan Nickel; Kevin Lea; Jane Albright; Fred Williams
Subject: Re: Water on Bennu; yes, another WWB Discovery!
I use to pride myself on test taking, but this one is tough! 🙂
From: Kevin Lea <kevinl_*******>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1:09 PM
To: Henry Morris
Cc: Walt Brown, Peggy; Bryan Nickel; Jane Albright; Fred Williams; Bob Enyart; Rob Yardley
Subject: Re: Water on Bennu; yes, another WWB Discovery!
I am forwarding this to Henry Morris III to see if he can help us out with an answer.
After all of the dozens of other scientific articles supporting HPT, that we have shared among ourselves over the last couple years, I thought it would be a good time to stop being selfish and sharing them with others.
So Henry, any thoughts?
Amazing days we are living in,
Note: Henry Morris III did not respond.
The following statements from Ten ways Edison treated Tesla like a jerk I believe apply to what is happening between the big creation organizations and Dr. Walt Brown.
If Edison hadn’t deemed one of Tesla’s most crucial radio wave-based innovations to be “impractical” back during World War I– when he first proposed plans for such–countless lives could have been saved for having the advantage of being able to detect enemy submarines. Of course it would not be actualized until decades later. But just to think of what damage Edison’s ego-driven meddling had cost time and again is infuriating.
Towards the end of Edison’s life, he was quoted as saying he wished he respected Tesla and his work more than he had. Too bad, at that point the damage had been done.