Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Behemoth/Genesis Update and A Brand New FAQ. PLEASE READ!

All quotes and images used via the Fair Use Act.

I suppose my adrenaline is running high,  just coming off the four-and-one-half-day Christopher Hitchens Appreciation page "debate" with an army of atheists (I won, frankly, by every debating rule in the book - they never debated and after four and a half days just blocked me after 400 posts consisting of mostly insults from the atheists). Being only human, therefore, and imperfect, I am in no mood, really, to then go to Facebook groups and see more ads for Eric Hovind's "Genesis the Movie". My problem with it is that movie, if you don't already know, is that in my opinion, and that of a growing number of others, is that there are similarities between Hovind's upcoming Genesis Movie and my Behold Now Behemoth from 2008 which are overwhelming. Too overwhelming to be coincidence, in my opinion and that of many others.

Before we get to the FAQ, I will repeat the similarities (so far) for those who don't know.

I'm not alone in my opinion of the similarities. Here is a very minimal sample of some of the previous responses on Facebook, used via the Fair Use Act, with personal information redacted. They can claim authorship if they want, but obviously I want to respect the privacy of friends and supporters. The opinions are those of the people who posted, not me.

While posting my request on Facebook for Eric Hovind to do the right thing according in accordance with Matthew 18 and explain why his upcoming Genesis The Movie for which he continues to raise finance looks so much like my Behold Now Behemoth from 2008, people have asked me the same questions repeatedly, and so it makes sense to post a FAQ.


1. Q. Eric Hovind says his movie, Genesis the Movie, is or will be the first special effects-driven Creationist movie/video of it's kind. Is that true or false?

A: If a movie is only defined as running 82 minutes or longer it is technically true but totally and IMO intentionally misleading in a very big way. If it means even something that runs 30 minutes, then the statement is entirely false. Behold Now Behemoth was released, seen and very favorably reviewed in 2008.

2. Q. In your opinion, should Eric Hovind stop publicly and repeatedly making the claim that his upcoming Genesis The Movie is the first such video and therefore unique?

A. Yes, of course. Absolutely. It is essentially untrue in actual fact, and he certainly knows it now.

3. Q. Have you contacted Hovind in private and does he know about this?

A: Yes, I conversed with his Facebook account in private and once I made my displeasure known, the account simply blocked me. I think most of us would agree that that's not the way one Christian brother is supposed to behave towards another. His show co-host., Maryanne Pike and I have communicated in private in Facebook a few times. Eventually she asked me to hold off my public complaint for one evening while she contacted Eric Hovind. That was many weeks ago. I asked her more recently for a follow-up. She did not respond directly to the request. Once again, IMO this is inappropriate behavior for one Christian to another.

4. Q. Creationism is coming from the same source, the Bible. therefore isn't such a preponderance of similarity to be expected from the two videos?

A. No. The idea that Creationism covers the same ground is obvious. the idea that so many visual and conceptual similarities arose by necessity by following those ideas is not remotely credible. Let's describe it this way, for starters:
I. Both are documentaries about creationism which cover the same ground in the style of the special-effects oriented science documentaries on the science channels. So there is a similarity right off the top. Before Genesis the Movie behold Now Behemoth had been the only video/movie to ever do a Creationist video in that manner. Indisputable.

II. Even if Eric Hovind had been previously unaware of Behemoth, which in my opinion is unlikely in the extreme,then the PREPONDERANCE of visual similarities was something that IMO Hovind, as a producer, had a duty to avoid by doing due diligence on this matter. You need to find similar subject matter and make sure you avoid it. This plainly was not done. Since Hovind makes his living, apparently, in the Creationist field and Behemoth was available and got good reviews years beforehand, make the idea that Hovind was unaware of Behemoth, in my opinion, essentially totally impossible. 

III. It's one thing to say, :"documentaries have nebula travel scenes".... "they have dinosaurs".... they have flying dinosaurs over mountains"..... "they may even have waterfall with creatures".... "maybe others have a T-Rex roaring at the camera"..... "maybe they fly over misty mountains"...... "and elephants"..... "and CGI animals".... but for a new Creationist video to have all those similarities with the only one previously existing creationist video of its kind ever made and thinking it to be a mere coincidence in my opinion and that of others lacks believably on a huge scale.

IV. Some aspects, such as the general visual aesthetic of shady forest lighting augmented by glowing highlights, particular in the only other creationist video of its kind ever made IMO screams "copy". 

V. ADD to that (please, do not compartmentalize these similarities because it is the preponderance which is the issue) the fact that both videos include the idea/concept of a man scratching the head a juvenile Apatosaurus, and IMO the idea that Behemoth "inspired", Genesis directly, just sends, IMO, the copy-o-meter needle into the red line. Remember, it is not that Genesis The Movie contains one of these things or many things from many different videos, it is that the one upcoming Genesis The Movie contains ALL of these things only found together in one other place: my Behold Now Behemoth from 2008.

5. Q: Should not all Christians should be grateful for another Creationist video telling the truth? 

A. That's fine on the surface. But I am also trying to raise money for volumes 2 and 3 of Behemoth (see the paypal buttons if you want to contribute) . Genesis, backed by a loud, big-money operation could make Behemoth from 2007 look like the copycat. Basically, my own opinion is that I am being steamrolled by an unauthorized remake of my own previous production. 

6. Q:  Should you really be personally upset?

A. Wouldn't you? This is serious business for me. How would YOU feel if YOU put a year of blood and sweat into Behemoth, it did well, got good reviews, and when you started to raise funds for volumes 2 and 3 you discovered Genesis being incorrectly touted by a big-money operation as 'the first of its kind" and "unique"? Be honest. It's unpleasant but stop and think about it. How would you feel? That's your answer.

7. Q. Besides Eric Hovind refusing to respond and Maryanne Pike's communications, has anyone else responded? 

A. Perhaps. A couple of people taking up for me have been verbally harassed on Facebook (though this has since stopped, so it's okay to make your thoughts known publicly again), in an apparent effort to shut them up. Hovind should speak out against these kinds of people ASAP or risk, IMO, appearing as though he employs such trolls as social media henchmen for his own business advancement.
8. Why not sue?

A. 1 Corinthians 6 tells us not to, but rather to work it out within the church. I know media and I know social media. Like it would be in the halls of a single congregation, eventually this issue will sit on the surface of Genesis the Movie like a radioactive cloud to other Christians and by that time, Eric Hovind's answers may read and sound thin, indeed, to those from whom he is attempting to raise money from Genesis. Obviously, it would be best for him to follow Matthew 18, which he has steadfastly refused to do for months, and make a credible and completely believe case for the overwhelming similarities.

9. Q. Will you stop before you get a satisfactory response per Matthew 18?

A. No. I paid for Behemoth in 2007-2008 out of my own pocket, with my own money. We worked hard on it and while the special effects are now looking a dated, they were regarded as excellent even by mainstream standards in 2008. I intend to do more volumes of Behemoth. It is my opinion that Genesis The Movie is very, very dramatically damaging my interests by existing so similarly and making untrue claims about being the first and unique, destroying Behemoth's well-deserved accolades and reputation.
Here are additional shots from Behemoth and a review.

10. What do you think will happen?

A. That depends entirely on Eric Hovind, who is listed as the producer of Genesis the Movie and who, in my opinion and that of many others, has a great deal of explaining to do.

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF PIECES OF GENESIS THE MOVIE GRAPHICS, used here via the Fair Use Act, which Hovind and company are using to promote their movie and rase money (they already raised half a million dollars. 

Please remember my Behold Now Behemoth and the fact that Eric Hovind apparently refuses to answer, per Matthew 18, questions about the similarities, when you see these posters online.

Used via the Fair Use Act.

Used via the Fair Use Act.


My most heartfelt thanks to the friends on Facebook and elsewhere who have like, shared, and spoken in defense of these concerns by following Mathew 18, which I will repeat here:

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican".

Monday, December 14, 2015

The Empirical Evidence For A Young Earth 6,000 - To - 10,000 Years Old.

All images and quotes used via the Fair Use Act.

By David Wilson

here is a great deal of scientific theory and speculation being passed off as fact regarding the age of the earth. But there is no way to prove any of it without at least two points of reference, historical record, or empirical evidence. The empirical evidence which does exist makes clear not only that the earth is young, but taken in its totality, the resulting collection fits very nicely into the Biblical time frame of 10,000 years or less. Such a manner of deducing the age would ordinarily be called an extrapolation (to draw a conclusion from a series of facts) by the mainstream scientific community, but where science must accept the facts of Christianity for the larger view to hold together, the scientific community appears to willfully lose sight of that little technique usually so important to any field of study.

There are many examples, but some are so conclusive as empirical evidence that, taken collectively, you really don't need anything else because all the additional theories in the world do not address and certainly do not disprove these examples of empirical evidence of a young earth. CreationDino wants to win this battle against the Old Earth atheists and those they influence quickly, so here is a small collection when, taken in the aggregate, is all anyone needs to throw at an atheist - and those innocents whom atheists would wrongly influence with their really, really bad science.

Remember, each one of these does not exist in its own universe. You must acknowledge that all of these are true simultaneously, and then you realize that an Old Earth is entirely impossible and a Young Earth is what the empirical evidence proves:

All facts in this creationist article are qualified by mainstream secular information sources - in other words, the places that most mock creationists - so you know the facts are not being fudged in favor of Creationism. Click the links as you go and you will be astounded at how correct this article really is. Astounded, because it proves everything you have been taught by the mainstream your whole life is absolute garbage.


A fragment of Sumerian writing: primitive production, sophisticated content.

It only goes back approximately 4,000 years, and when it begins, people are discussing philosophy and politics and intelligent views of the human emotional condition. Now, the problem with the Old Earth model is that it is believed that primitive people handed down primitive stories from generation to generation. That's cute, but what is written in the beginning of recorded history far surpasses any kind of verbal passing from one generation to another, it is much, much too complex to be preserved by oral tradition.

King Tutsville

Humankind used to be thought to go back a million years. Now chromosome discoveries have forced the mainstream scientific establishment to roll that back to "only" 50,000 - to - 150,000 years or so (once again basing their statement of "fact" on theoretical conclusions about the chromosome evidence). So even then, how did human beings pass down to generations and spread out to very large populations all these complex ideas for 44,000 - to - 144,000 years which otherwise spring like a fountain the moment written history is introduced?

There are many examples of why oral tradition breaks down after a certain population size, but here is a simple one everyone remembers. Did you ever play "telephone" in grade school where the teacher whispers an idea into one child's ear, they whisper it to the next and so on and when it comes back to the teacher the expressed thought is entirely different? That extremely simple, everyday example alone should remind everyone that preserving the first written philosophical and sociological complexities to very large populations and through generations by oral tradition alone would have obviously been entirely impossible. Oral tradition breaks down very quickly when larger numbers are introduced. It would have been impossible to preserve complex philosophies in the same manner.

What we are left with according to the information the mainstream promotes is essentially 44,000 - 144,000 years of grunting and 10-word vocabularies punctuated by bearskins and clubs and then out of nowhere people are writing about politics, ethics, philosophy and good manners. While this absurd dichotomy does not seem to bother the mainstream scientist at all, it's a laughable scenario to anyone with an ounce of common sense. The mainstream view is therefore plainly wrong and the Christian Creationist view is plainly the correct one.

Possibly the first Christian book, held by the Apostles

The Creationist - and obviously correct - answer? God created man as he exists, his mind fully-formed and functioning as a created being, already thinking complex concepts from the get-go, so all that sophisticated thinking showed up the moment man started writing.

4,000 year written history fits perfectly into the Biblical time frame which makes coincidence rather unlikely to say the least.

Now as they say in those TV commercials for "as seen on TV" products, "But wait! there's more!"


For the earth to be 10,000 years old or less would demand that dinosaurs lived at the same time as men. So indoctrinated has western culture been with the supposed "fact' that such a thing was impossible that, unhappily, as you know or can imagine, many people find the concept laughable. But then, remember this CreationDino article that proves - proves, 100%, no doubt whatsoever - that mainstream paleontology either lied to protect jobs and scientific establishment orthodoxy or were truly too stupid to be trusted for a full 100 years on the subject of warm or cold-blooded dinosaurs.

1964 illustration showing inaccurate endothermic dinosaurs, an idea demanded by all of mainstream science when the truth that the dinosaurs were warm-blooded - endothermic - was already understood for 100 years, but what;s a little fib here and there between mainstream science academicians?

First, there is none - zero - empirical evidence that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago. The age of dinosaur bones is determined by radiometric dating - reading the age of the mineral content around the bones and, despite mainstream science pronouncements to the contrary, this process has been proved time and again to be extremely unreliable; volcanic material from different volcanoes, all less than 1,000 years old, over and over, are dated in the hundreds of thousands - to - millions of years old. The labs have become so paranoid about being punked by happy and fun-loving creationists that the labs now demand to know so much about the sample to be dated beforehand that they essentially demand that the person paying the lab to date the material essentially date it themselves. It's horrendously unreliable science, but then the paleontology field lied or was too stupid to get the absolute simplest basics right for 100 years, also, so radiometric dating is just more of the same, today.

One dating process that is, in fact, somewhat reliable, however, is radiocarbon dating, which, as rightfully predicted by the inventor, Professor Willard Libby, is only good for 50,000 years - based on an abstract, idea sample condition -  since the element in question, C-14, has a half-life of only 5,000 years, and after 50,000 years - based on a theoretical ideal sample -the process becomes useless.

Willard Libby who invented the radiocarbon dating process got it right: it's only good for as far back as 50,000 years. So why is there C-14 in supposed 65 million-year-old dinosaur samples?!

Let's take a quick look at the empirical evidence.

A. Soft Dinosaur Tissue in Dinosaur Bones.-

This remains to yours truly still a bit of a mind-blower, but the mainstream scientific community was 'shocked" and then almost forgot about what common sense demanded should have re-written the rules about all prior concepts of old earth history.

In a nutshell, soft, pliable dinosaur  tissue was found inside an actual dinosaur bone - not a fossil. Cue sound effect of car screeching brakes. Let's stop right there a moment and back up a bit. What was an actual dinosaur bone doing hanging around after 65 million years? Animal bone decomposes after a few years in normal, natural conditions. Even the bones of the largest contemporary land animal, the elephant, falls apart after a few years and the larger bones absolutely, positively do not last for one million years, let alone 65 million years.

Actual T-Rex soft tissue, supposedly an obviously impossible 65 million years old.

Now obviously, soft tissue is even worse than the bone. Decomposition is extremely rapid. Yet the rational mind is supposed to believe, despite all contemporary empirical evidence to the contrary, that animal tissue, soft and pliable, was supposed to survive after 65 million years. Go to Africa and see how many elephant bones still have soft tissue in them after a few years. Now it turns out people are finding dinosaur tissue all over. Scientist Mark Armitage has his very own triceratops horn - the largest discovered -  and he found soft tissue in that, too, for which the wonderful, free-thinking and peace-loving scientists at the University where he worked fired him. 

But it gets better (or worse).

The mainstream scientific community has an explanation after nearly 10 years as to why the initial T-Rex bone has soft tissue inside. Ready for this? Iron seeped into the bone which should not still exist and preserved the tissue inside the bone. Problem? Many. 1. The same water which would have been needed to carry the iron into the tissue also would have carried materials in which would have destroyed that same tissue. 2. Formalin is not so great at preserving things for more than several years, So even if iron, which is being compared by the mainstream as very weak formalin, carried by seeping water was as good as formalin, and it isn't, it could have only preserved the tissue a few years. In fact, in Russia, they continue the ghastly, morbid practice of keeping Lenin's body preserved so they can can trot it out occasionally and people can gaze at it, because, I guess, you know, it's there. And the body according to some experts is already looking "ragged" (gak) after only 80 years and under these extreme preservation tech conditions: "Lenin gets an extreme makeover every 18 months or so. The mausoleum is closed for two months and the body is immersed in a bath of glycerol and potassium acetate for 30 days. The skin slowly absorbs the solution, regaining its moisture and pliancy."

"With current techniques, the body could last 'many decades, even for 100 years,' said Ilya Zbarsky, 90, a doctor who worked on the body from 1934 to 1952."

Yet we are supposed top believe that iron carried by destructive water seepage kept the soft Tyrannosaurus Rex tissue pliable for sixty-five million years. SIXTY-FIVE MILLION YEARS.  And Thomas-Rexy isn't alone. So does that mean that water bled totally and completely impossible-preserving iron into Mark Arimitage's triceratops horn, too, and everyone else's dinosaur bones supposedly 65 million years ago? It begins to look a little unlikely, doesn't it?

Now to be fair, the mainstream scientific community never categorically said iron definitely preserved it; the media makes that declaration in the headlines and the scientists themselves only say it may have played a part. They don't know how the soft tissue can exist in their presumptive Old Earth mindset. But then, they never say, "Well, it may be the dinosaur died a teensy bit closer to us on the timeline." No. They say "may have" and "65 million years" and then skip merrily along like drooling, spastic idiots to the next presumptive absurdity on another subject.

Obviously, the mainstream science community never asks themselves meaningful questions that might upset their comfy fantasy world, They say, in effect, "We have degrees we earned 30 years ago by virtue of telling our professors back then what they wanted to read and hear from us so don't ask us any dumb questions like, you know, 'how could soft tissue possibly exist after sixty five million years when everyone from children to doctors know that that is patently impossible' or anything like that."

It's like we're living in the middle ages, folks, and the primitive atheist religion is the dominant force in the world, demanding that we simply accept their superstitions or be humiliated to death for heresy!

B. Dinosaur Art Made A Thousand Years Before The Science Of Paleontology.

The implication here is clear: people sharing a Young Earth with dinosaurs at that time saw living dinosaurs and made pictures and pottery of them the way they did antelopes and other animals. It's the only thing that makes any sense, really, because these things time and again have been proven over decades after their discovery to be genuine and the resemblance to known dinosaur species is unmistakable.

The most dramatic examples of this are the Acambaro dinosaurs. Making a long story short, there is now, in Mexico, a state-run museum housing countless primitive sculptures, radiocarbon dated at between 1,500 and 3,000 years old and their unearthing was witnessed by people beyond reproach including some Americans, among them Erle Stanley Gardner, at first a lawyer and then the best-selling novelist of the 20th century at the time of his death in 1970. Gardner wrote the famous Perry Mason mysteries and wrote a book about the Acambaro dinosaurs in the 1950's, as he was there when the first statues had been unearthed, which he saw for himself. Others, including representatives of the Mexican government were also at the dig at the time. In other words, it's totally impossible for the statues to be planted fakes even if they had never been radiocarbon dated. While some of the dinosaurs are admittedly a little vague in appearance, most are decidedly suggestive of dinosaurs and some are true dead-ringers.

Pretty recognizable dinosaur types in the state-run museum in Mexico, statues the unearthing of which were witnessed by people beyond reproach and radiocarbon-dated variously at 1,500 - 3,000 years old - over 1,000 years before the science of paleontology even existed.

So we have actual dinosaur bones - not fossils; actual soft dinosaur tissue which should not exist by an insane degree if the the bones were even one million years old and they read according to radio carbon dating as being no more than a few thousand years old But if you question the idea that maybe - just maybe - they might not be 65 million years old you will get fired from your university job. How sweet. How beautiful the love for truth in fact-funding as exemplified our mainstream scientific community which fires people for simply stating a truth contrary to the scientific orthodoxy. And, of course, thousands of little statues,authenticated by everyone including the Mexican government, obviously made by a wide range of primitive artisans, statues some of which are dead-ringers for dinosaurs when the world had not the tools to even dig a fossil carefully out of the ground in those times, let alone reconstruct them accurately, and certainly not in Mexico 2,000 years ago.

The mainstream can stupidly mock all they want but the facts add up to dinosaurs + men = together. There is no other possible explanation and the soft dinosaur tissue makes it more than merely "possible"; the soft tissue - reported by every mainstream news and science source in the world - is so obviously relatively recent that there is no way that those samples of soft dinosaur tissue could have possibly existed before the advent of man, therefore dinosaurs and men had to have lived at the same time. No other scenario is literally possible.


This is actually pretty simple. It is estimated by all mainstream sources that there are 7 billion people on the earth today,  If the human race was repopulated after the Great Flood starting with the survivors from the Ark at a population growth rate of only 0.5% , we would be at the current population we have today. Most of the mainstream science community would say that the population explosion is recent due to advances in nutrition and medicine, but those places that have the least of both - Third World countries - have the highest population growth rate, as high as a full 3%.

However if you take the number of years back only 100,000 years, as demanded by the mainstream scientific community otherwise demands you must, by implication, you would have today a current population of many trillions of people.

There are many population graphs which all have one huge flaw: there were no census takers before the late 1800's, and certainly not global. Everything before that time is conjecture and you see the population growths slow way down on the imaginary part of the graph. Even then, Year One, which hypothesizes one one graph 200 million people in the world only goes back 2,000 years.

The Old Testament was written 3,500 years ago and the Great Flood happened before that. So by using mainstream - non-Creation - sources - it is plainly impossible for there to be any likely population just after the Great Flood, well after 6,000 - 10,000 years ago in which the empirical evidence plainly suggests everything started. And that which is said to have happened before that is literally theory and conjecture.Literally. No fact. What we know is that medical science, as proved by the rate of growth in Third World countries, has very little to do with modern population growth despite cheery assumptions to the contrary and without that as a hypothetical catalyst, working backward, the human human race tally literally dries up and shows to have started - or re-started after the flood, as told in the Old Testament - around 4,000 years ago.

U.S. census shows a doubling of the world population in just the last 65 years. Yet we are supposed to believe that the human race could possibly be as old a 200 thousand years when the most optimistic appraisal forces the human population, working backward, to start around 4,000 years ago, approximately the time when the Great flood destroyed all but those in the Ark 

Additionally, like with recorded history, the mummies, artifacts, burial remains and the rest only go back 4,000 - 5,000 years, mostly even with radiometric dating techniques applied to the objects which otherwise could be read as far back as 50,000 years with radiocarbon dating. They do not. 10,000 years appears to be a universal cutoff point for 90% of tests, and the remaining 10% could easily be regarded as simply falling well within the much larger margin of error.


In other words, when you take entirely unreliable dating methods out of the equation everything - everything, language, recorded history, artifacts - even dinosaurs - that we can know simply starts between 6,000 - to - 10,000 years ago. Everything else about an old earth is steeped in hypothesis and even that is slowly being undone by mainstream science itself: C-14 is being found in diamonds which supposedly take hundreds of thousands of years and more to form, Likewise, coal beds are now proven to be formed relatively recently ("A rather startling and serendipitous discovery resulted...These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals...were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event." [Six Hours], George R. Hill (Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries at the University of Utah), Chemical Technology, May, 1972, pp. 292-296.), distant starlight as a way of measuring the age of the universe never takes into account that gravity - of which there is plenty in space - bends time, and is also therefore useless. The list goes on and on (read other articles on this site for more)

When you take wishful theory out of what we have and know, what you are left with is a few gigantically compelling empirical evidences for an earth no older than a mere 10,000 years... recorded history bursting out of nowhere filled with social and philosophical sophistication with absolutely nothing leading up to that moment; totally unexplained dinosaur soft tissue you can see and touch today and the secondary fact that people were painting and sculpting dinosaurs in art of antiquity thousands of years before the science of paleontology and 65 million years after the dinosaurs supposedly went extinct; and the discrepancy between the human population re-started after the Great Flood, a population which gives us today's population and obliterates the theory in which the human population supposedly began a million years ago, because even if cut down to 10% - to 100,000 years - would have produced a current global population many thousands of times larger than the 7 billion people which it currently is. Oh yes, as a side note, don't forget our old lunar pal, the re-energized Dust on the Moon evidence, which is plainly mostly empirical.

Once again, mainstream science advocates will attempt to compartmentalize this evidence so each subject stands apart from the others and as they discuss it, will work in unsubstantiated hypothesis after hypothesis, getting further and further away from reality without ever even drawing an extrapolation from the facts - facts which show each one must have occurred somewhere in the same time frame: 6,000 - to - 10,000 years ago, and essentially prove them all when understood collectively. That's a bit too much of a coincidence for even the most starry-eyed secular optimist with any sense of shame to want to accept, at least publicly.

Someone please inform the mainstream scientific establishment to forget regurgitating what their professors wanted to hear and read according to their personal biases and prejudices back in the day and stick to the current scientific and historic empirical facts and only the empirical facts. The world looks a whole lot different when you stick to the facts. It looks young.
If you like what you see and read on CreationDino, please help us continue our work as well as additional installments of the video Behold Now Behemoth by giving a "Christian Payment Offering" for the dollar amount of your choice with the dropdown menu on the Paypal button on the upper right hand side of the screen for what you read and watch on CreationDino. We could really use the help right about now.

Thursday, December 3, 2015



crowdfunding "Go Fund Me" page has been discontinued. Too many people have privately expressed concern that it wants credit card information rather than PayPal (which also takes Credit Cards and is a lot safer and better insured, quite frankly) and other hassles which have been proving to make people uncomfortable. 


Videos like Behold Now Behemoth are expensive and time-consuming to make. We can make them much more inexpensively than other videos which are way too similar, in our opinion, to Behemoth to be a coincidence.


Use the Paypal button to choose the small amount and help as much and whenever you can.

PLEASE GIVE for more like what you read, here....

PLEASE GIVE for more of what you see here....

PLEASE "pay" whatever you wish on the "honor system" for more of what you watch here, we can certainly use the help!....