For this week’s episode, we respond to the skeptics and atheists:



We dive into our mailbag to respond to questions
about zinc isotopes, clams, the receding moon, and
more. We spend the entire show this week answering
the detractors in this special edition of Genesis Week


Welcome to this episode of Genesis Week – the weekly
program of creationary commentary on news, views
and events pertaining to the origins controversy.
We’re gonna answer questions, and question answers!
Proudly brought to you by the supporters of CORE
Ottawa, Citizens for Origins Research and Education,
and now carried on the Christianima network –
Christian Cinema at its finest. Some of the finest
pirate broadcasting you’ll see, transmitting from
Verna’s truck stop, we continue to bring you the
information the anticreationists don’t want you to
see or hear, and we continue to give glory to the
Creator while doing it. Remember you can find us
in cyberspace at (that’s me) or, and you can subscribe to my youtube
channel and get extras like CrEvo Rants and full
interviews with our guests. I’m your host, Ian Juby.
oooooooooo Wait, wait, wait – I had the “O” key
stick on my keyboard this week while scripting this
show. I got a new keyboard but apparently some of
the original script wound up in the teleprompter
files. And Joe, our dyslexic teleprompter operator
doesn’t seem to have a problem with it either. And
as you can see, adding letters did not increase the
information in the script.

I had a PILE of feedback, emails, and youtube
comments sent to me the past two weeks from various
atheists, critics, or people who genuinely believe
they have evidence of evolution or an old earth.
Several were excellent points or questions brought
up, and many of them overlapped, so I thought I
would take a lot of time to address several of them,
so let’s dive right into the mailbag!

[scary, dramatic music]

Wahoo! Mail for me?


Yup, that’s it!

The East Vietnamese jumping spider.

The venom is so strong that one bite will kill any
child, and 95% of adults. The surviving 5% typically
slip into a coma for three to six months, only to
wake up with permanent paralysis.


[scary, dramatic music]
I should mention that this show needs to be produced
many days in advance of airing, and so production
starts literally a week before showtime, thus there
can be delays of up to two weeks in responding to
viewer feedback – but – your feedback is important,
and thank you for it.

Youtuber Webofscience took issue with several things
said in our “What a blast episode” where we talked
about the Zinc isotope ratios on the moon as alleged
evidence of an impact origin for the moon. I hope I
got the order right, because YouTube mixed up
webofscience’s multiple postings, but here’s what
he wrote:

I then asked WebofScience if they could please cite
which Grove paper they mentioned, and they replied

Thanks for writing in – you know of my fondness for
bad puns and science jokes, so anyone who posts bad
puns definitely has a better chance of getting their
email read on the show here. I already mentioned
in the previous show that there were other isotopes
that had been examined from the moon rocks, such as
oxygen and titanium, which did NOT support the
impact hypothesis.

Okay – those of you with the eyes glazed over, and
for the sake of viewers who just joined and haven’t
got a clue what we’re talking about, let’s go over
the history again, and include the Grove research
webofscience mentioned.

If you’ll recall, the premise of the zinc research
from moon rocks was to see if there was any lighter
zinc isotopes missing, which would indicate that
the zinc was vapourized by tremendous heat, which
would support the theory that the moon was formed by
the collission of a planet with earth. As my guest,
Spike Psarris and I both pointed out, there was
LOADS of WATER in the moon rocks from deep within
the moon. There are loads of more other problems
with the impact theory that we could discuss, but
we focused in on the water problem: How on earth
(or on the moon) could ZINC be vaporized and lost,
but not water? Water boils at 100 degrees C – in
fact it will boil at much, much lower temperatures
in the vacuum of space, while zinc boils at 907
degrees C! So it’s pretty simple: you cannot
vaporize and lose zinc from the moon without
vaporizing and losing the water as well – but
there’s LOTS of water in the moon rocks. As Spike
pointed out, and was reiterated by webofscience, a
2008 paper by Saal, Hauri et al, showed water
content in the moon rocks of around 45 parts per
million. Please note that this study was based on
actual, physical measurements – this wasn’t theory,
this was FACT. And even with those levels of water,
Hauri told the NPR:

As webofscience pointed out, Elkins-Tanton and Grove
then came out with a paper in 2011 in which they
used computer models to estimate the water content
of the moon. Basically, they (and other researchers)
were attempting to ascribe the high water content
that Saal and others kept finding, as anomolous –
out of place; weird. Based on their THEORIES and
COMPUTER MODELS, Elkins-Tanton and Grove concluded
that the actual water content of the moon rocks was
actually only around 10ppm, the low-end of the scale
that Saal had found. Please notice that the
Elkins-Tanton paper was based on THEORY, not actual

Not eight days after the Elkins-Tanton and Grove
paper came out, Hauri published another paper
detailing further studies of crystals from the moon,
and they found out that the original numbers they
published in 2008 were, in fact, wrong. The water
content of the rocks was not ten times higher than
expected, it was ONE HUNDRED TIMES more. Please
notice that Hauri’s research was actual measurement
– not theory, this was FACT, which systematically
disqualified all the THEORIES of Elkins-Tanton and
Grove, and all the THEORIES that others have spent
years putting together to try and say that the water
isn’t there! Yes, while it is not the only nail,
the water is most certainly a HUGE nail in the
coffin of the impact theory. If Hauri could not
untie this knot with 1/10 the amount of water
before, are you now saying that YOU can untie this
knot when the water content has gone up ten fold?

For our next segment, let’s actually revisit my
interview with Spike Psarris where we were talking
about the lunar recession.

Right, okay. So we were talking about tides, the
tides also tell us something about whether or not
the Earth-Moon system can be billions of years old.
Tell us about that.
As the Moon orbits the Earth, it raises tides in our
oceans–the water bulges out toward the moon.
There’s actually two bulges–one facing the Moon,
and another one on the opposite hemisphere of the
Earth, which is the result of the water getting
pulled away from the sides toward the main tidal

On earth, we experience tides as the ocean rising
and falling, but that’s not really what’s happening.
What’s happening is that the Earth is rotating
underneath the tidal bulges, and as you stand on
one spot of the Earth, your location rotates into a
bulge and then back out of it. Our rotation isn’t
shown on this video, so the viewers will have to
imagine how that works.

As the Earth spins underneath the tidal bulges, it
drags them forward slightly, because there’s a
little bit of friction there between the ocean floor
and the water. So the bulge that faces the Moon
doesn’t line up with the Moon exactly. It’s offset
a bit.

This large mass of ocean water exerts a
gravitational pull on the Moon that’s slight offset
from the Earth. It pulls the Moon sideways a bit,
which accelerates it in its orbit.

This means that the Moon is moving away from the
Earth by a small distance each year. We know this
happening, and we know how much — we’ve been
measuring this effect very precisely with lasers
for several decades now.

So if the Moon moves farther away each year, that
means it used to be closer in the past. Do the math,
and it turns out that the Moon would have been
touching the Earth just 1.6 billion years ago. Now
I say “only,” that’s a long time.

I’m not saying that the Earth-Moon system is 1.6
billion years old. That’s the maximum age, not the
minimum. I’ve come to believe that the Earth-Moon
system is less than ten thousand years old, and what
we see is consistent what that.

But its very inconsistent with the long-age view,
which needs the Earth-Moon system to be about 4
billion years old. Two and a half billion years
older than what it can be, based on what we see
going on today.

With regards to lunar recession, YouTuber Kiwifrogg
brought up a question which I also got bombarded
with by a bunch of atheists the past couple of

Thanks for writing in. My first question is: How
do you propose to block the tides? Blocking the
tides with continents, for example, tends to
INCREASE the acceleration of the moon. Kiwifrogg
was only one of many this past week to bring up
rhythmites – now what are rhythmites? Rhythmites
are layers of sediment or rock which are laid down
in rhythm; either daily by tides, or annually – like
the alleged varves we discussed last week.

Normally I don’t even mention the YouTube atheists,
becaues their videos tend to be filled with not just
a whole lot of misinformation, but also profanity,
insanity, insults, etc… Popular creation speaker
Eric Hovind and I were top contenders for an award
on YouTube given out by, as Eric called them, the
“Atheist/agnostic/anti-christ/god-hating YouTubers.”
This award is given out to those creationists they
deem to have broken the ninth commandment. I find it
highly ironic that they would call upon the laws of
God whom they contend does not even exist. Well,
Eric Hovind apparently beat me out by a few votes,
and YouTuber Potholer54, who organizes the awards,
once again has criticized and accused out of his own
sheer ignorance. Now I don’t fault him for being
ignorant, none of us is omniscient. It’s the fact
that he mockingly, condescendingly hurled false
accusation of “lies” at Eric, when in fact, Potholer
was simply ignorant of the facts. Eric was being
criticized for the very same argument Spike and I
brought up: the receding moon. Potholer, and a wack
of other atheists, as well as the anti-creationary
website Talkorigins, all contend that the moon
receding from earth isn’t a problem for deep time!
Let’s look carefully at what they did here. Potholer
and all the other anti-creationists and naturalists
understand the very real problem that the receding
moon presents to the alleged old age of the moon,
and have tried for years to somehow explain it away.
They quickly ditch their UNIFORMITARIAN
assumptions – what is that? Look at the root word:
uniform. It’s the idea that present day processes
have always been the same. you know, the moon is
receding now, therefore it would seem logical that
it was ALWAYS receding in the same way.
Tim Thompson over at the talkorigins page, claimed
of course that in the past, the moon was receding at
a slower rate, and Potholer did the same thing.
They have to argue this, because they claim the
moon to be at least 3 billion years old – but in
fact, the exact OPPOSITE would happen, for multiple
reasons: First, there’s the inverse square law – as
you go back in time, the moon gets closer to earth,
as the moon gets closer, the pull of gravity on the
moon gets exponentially stronger, and thus the moon
picks up speed that much faster. So in complete
contradiction to well established physics, Thompson
and Potholer make a special pleading; they move
continents around, and vary the ocean depths.
Presumably Potholer was, once again, just copying
from another horribly out of date talkorigins page,
in this case, Thompson’s page who cites a 1999 paper
by Hansen, in hopes that Hansen’s paper can somehow
save them from getting mooned too recently.
Hansen took incredible creative liberties in his
model: He put everything together into one continent
and then put it either at the pole, or at the
equator, and spun the earth so fast that a day was
12 to 18 hours long! This was not based on evidence,
but strictly to try and solve the lunar recession
problem. And as Egbert recently pointed out, even
if you make the oceans deeper, you STILL have a
whole pile of drag on the tides, which slows down
the earth, and speeds up the moon!

Everything that we can deduce about earth’s past
says the moon would have receded FASTER in the past,
not slower as Potholer, Thompson, and many others
are desperately pleading for.

Now about rhythmites? Potholer claimed:

Notice what Potholer just did? He rejected the
uniformitarian assumptions which were based on
present day observations of the moon’s recession
rate that did NOT support an old age he wants for
the moon. He then gave a big’ol hug to
uniformitarian assumptions about rhythmites, coral
growth rates, and their ages, because he thinks
they give him the answer he wants. Come on Potholer
– it’s all or nothing – you can’t accept SOME
uniformitarian assumptions and reject others you
don’t like. If you can reject them, then so can I.

Potholer even cited a 1999 paper by Williams,
claiming that Williams’ study of rhythmites not
only “takes us back” 2-1/2 billion years, he claims
it shows us the moon was only 10% closer to earth
than it is today! Really? Isn’t it interesting to
note that only a few years prior, Williams actually
interpreted rhythmites as being caused by the SUN,
and one must ask the question, how did Williams
“know” the age of those rhythmites? Only one way:
the evolutionary timescale ASSIGNED to those rocks!

So, Potholer, Thompson and others have tossed out
well established physics and present day observation,
complete with an exceptionally good understanding
of exactly why the moon is receding, only to embrace
an unknown past, based on questionable
uniformitarian assumptions and assumed ages!
Isn’t it interesting that Potholer never mentions
the Mazumder paper which came out 6 years after
Williams’ paper, which cites both the Williams and
Chan papers, and says

and he closes his article with:

Translation: We can’t tell the moon’s distance, nor
the earth’s spin in the past based on rhythmites
because we can’t figure out how long a month was
back then. And if we gave you some numbers, they’d
be nothing more than a wild guess.

You would think Potholer, Thompson and others would
have learned their lesson from the failed
uniformitarian assumptions of the past. In his
talkorigins article, Thompson claims he has learned
this lesson, criticizes creationists for making
uniformitarian assumptions…and then hypocritically
wades in way over his head in uniformitarian
assumptions, calling upon RHYTHMITES as proof of a
past lower recession rate for the moon! Are you
dizzy yet from all the circular reasoning and
hypocrisy? Bear with me.

Last week we discussed the alleged annual layers of
ice cores and varves. Well rhythmites also have
some surprises – rhythmites that look like represent
thousands of years can form in a single DAY. My
fellow creationary researchers who only write, get
off mercifully, I’m on television, so I have to
pronounce an Icelandic word, jökulhlaup, which is a
catastrophic breach of an ice dam on a glacier. A
dramatic jökulhlaup broke forth near Grimsvotn,
Iceland on November 5, 1996. This sudden
catastrophic dumping of a glacial lake produced 200
planar rhythmites in under 17 hours. This was one
very small, very turbulent flow of water, on a very
small part of a very small island. Obviously then,
a global flood can produce rhythmites on a huge
scale, literally world wide, in a very short time.

So Eric Hovind is not a liar, nor is the earth-moon
system billions of years old. When one looks at the
EVIDENCE logically, it all indicates that the moon
is far, far too young for the evolutionary time
scale. But there is no conflict with the Biblical
time scale. Any attempt to explain away the
evidence involves wild guesses, outlandish
speculations and special pleading, and hypocrisy of
the highest order. Critics being ignorant of the
facts does not make Eric a liar.

[funny music]

Funny, fast and furious! Ian’s CrEvo Rants cover a
multitude of topics in an easy to understand,
comical way. Complicated subject that normally make
your brain hurt, hurt a lot less when Ian explains

while wearing his anti-government mind reading
equipment. Have questions about Carbon 14 dating?
Natural selection, thermodynamics, or…
what on earth is he doing there? Three volumes of
rants on DVD,
take your pick for $15 each plus S&H or order all
three as a package and save yourself ten bucks!
Order on line today at Ian’s bookstore.

[Theme music]

Another athiest YouTuber Baud2Bit posted a video in
response to my CrEvo Rant #78 where I talk about
genetic entropy. Baud claims to have found an
example of a beneficial mutation. He brought up a
fascinating creature called the lampsilis mussel.
This clam, as well as several others, have a
feature that looks remarkably like a minnow, which
attracts fish to aid in its reproduction. Baud
pointed to a video available on YouTube from an
unknown documentary, which claims that this “fish
lure” attracts only a specific type of bass. When
the bass goes to eat the fake minnow, the clam
releases its baby clams, called glochidia which
then attach to the fish’s gills where it lives as
a parasite off of the fishes blood for a time,
then drops off to the river floor later on.
Baud2bits emphasized his point in a comment left
on YouTube:

It’s interesting because the exact same footage and
example was used by Dr. Jobe Martin in his
phenomenal video series “Incredible creatures that
defy evolution.” Dr. Martin, a former evolutionist
himself, actually uses this very clam as an example
of incredible CREATION, not evolution. Baud2Bits
and the producers of the documentary made several
bold and unfounded assumptions in their attempt to
promote evolutionary thinking. For example – they
assume that predation is the real reason for the
fish lure. They apparently never considered any
other possibilities. In fact, in the documentary,
they show a different clam with a different lure,
point out that it’s different than the others and
then claim it is “unsuccessful” in attracting fish.
Wait a minute! According then to your unfounded
speculations, that clam shouldn’t even be there!
Obviously both Baud and the documentary producers
are flat-out wrong in their assumptions. Lures
attracting fish are not necessarily just to attract
predators, for example, it could simply be
attracting fish of the same kind it was presenting –
attracting schools of the same fish, or other fish
that are just plain curious. It is well known that
the clam can just release its glochidia into the
water, where by chance, fish breathing will suck in
the glochidia, which attach to the gills. But also
notice what the Minnesota department of Natural
Resources has to say about the glochidia:

So even a fish, or school of fish, coming near the
clam or just simply touching the fish lure can have
the glochidia attach to them – there is no predator
activity necessary.
As for parasitic relationships, again, these can
actually be symbiotic relationships – a symbiotic
relationship is where two different organisms live
or thrive because of each other. These symbiotic
relationships have also been harmed in the
corruption of the world, and thus we may not even
recognize them as symbiotic.
For example, it’s now known that intestinal worms
in humans can stave off asthma. The worms actually
seem to have a beneficial affect on the human immune
system. So parasitic relationships are not
necessarily bad or one way, but perhaps contain a
symbiosis to them we didn’t even know about!
So the lampsilis clam does not demand evolution, nor
predation, and is an excellent example of
incredible design.

And finally, we got an email from one more atheist
who wrote in from Newfoundland:
Thanks for writing in Kevin, and thanks for the kind
Okay – we are outa time, I’m your host Ian Juby, I
hope you’ll join me again next Genesis Week.
Remember you can send in your comments, questions,
proprietary industrial secrets to, or you can send us a tweet
@GenesisWeek, or you go to our YouTube channel at, find the latest show and leave a
comment there. Remember those words of our Creator,
the Lord Jesus Christ, who said “I am the way, the
truth, and the life – no man comes to the father but
through me!” See you next week.


We need your support to
help keep this program on
the air. You can help by
making a tax-deductible
donation to CORE Ottawa.

You can also sign up for
Ian’s newsletter, detailing
current news and research