Uploaded January 2016 | Updated September 2026, 23 minutes ago
THE MONEY
arguing with creationists can be frustrating as they will often go around in circles presenting the same tired arguments and citing the same hand full of sources that seemingly have an answer for everything to support their positions. However, there are very strong and powerful arguments out there for which they have no comeback and this series seeks to present those arguments so that you can bitch-slap your opponents with them, right back to the Iron Age where they belong.
It has often been said that the proof of an idea is often in its utility in that good ideas that are generally correct have uses where as bad ideas that are generally incorrect do not.
To this end we take a closer look at the most financially successful creationist advocates in the United States and we examine how they use the “Creation Science” they promote and the results they obtain compared with other organisations that make use of the science that these creationist advocates categorically reject as being completely incorrect.
I think that you already suspect the conclusions and that the outcome is going to be a bit one sided, but when faced with the evidence it’s quite hard to believe just how one sided it really is.
Important Note
All financial data presented in this production is obtained from widely published end of year results provided by the organisations involved themselves, or from documentation submitted to the IRS in order to claim a tax exemption which is made available for public scrutiny by the IRS as a condition of granting a 501c(3) tax exemption. Therefore there is no information contained within this presentation that has not already been put out into the public domain by the organisations involved themselves and made readily available via general means such as online encyclopaedias, charity ratings websites and the IRS, or that could be considered private, privileged, or commercially sensitive by those organisations involved. It is therefore on this basis that any privacy claim shall be challenged as being without merit.
THE MONEY
arguing with creationists can be frustrating as they will often go around in circles presenting the same tired arguments and citing the same hand full of sources that seemingly have an answer for everything to support their positions. However, there are very strong and powerful arguments out there for which they have no comeback and this series seeks to present those arguments so that you can bitch-slap your opponents with them, right back to the Iron Age where they belong.
It has often been said that the proof of an idea is often in its utility in that good ideas that are generally correct have uses where as bad ideas that are generally incorrect do not.
To this end we take a closer look at the most financially successful creationist advocates in the United States and we examine how they use the “Creation Science” they promote and the results they obtain compared with other organisations that make use of the science that these creationist advocates categorically reject as being completely incorrect.
I think that you already suspect the conclusions and that the outcome is going to be a bit one sided, but when faced with the evidence it’s quite hard to believe just how one sided it really is.
Important Note
All financial data presented in this production is obtained from widely published end of year results provided by the organisations involved themselves, or from documentation submitted to the IRS in order to claim a tax exemption which is made available for public scrutiny by the IRS as a condition of granting a 501c(3) tax exemption. Therefore there is no information contained within this presentation that has not already been put out into the public domain by the organisations involved themselves and made readily available via general means such as online encyclopaedias, charity ratings websites and the IRS, or that could be considered private, privileged, or commercially sensitive by those organisations involved. It is therefore on this basis that any privacy claim shall be challenged as being without merit.
