The Ark and the Darkness

There's quite a simple test to understand if somebody is a man of God. If somebody operates with love, and they can communicate their truth while accepting others truth, then they are like God, and they are one of gods people. Unfortunately, at least 2 of main narrators in this film are very much filled with hate, they are men of distraction and distortion.

I personally am a believer in the flood, and I don't think that the Bible is a terrible account of it either. But trying to prove facts that have been distorted over thousands of years isn't helping their case.

Given many other accounts which have surfaced, a better interpretation of the Bible in particular of the flood or that God in the Bible is aliens, you can quite literally replace the word God in the Bible with aliens and have a much more accurate account. They spend a lot of time talking about the lifespans of humans, well that's what happens when you have a race that lives 1000 years and they interbreed with a genetic stock here that lives much less time.

There's no mention of carbon 14 dating, and it's quite a sad charade of trying to make a literal interpretation of the Bible seem plausible by pretending that the only arguments are the ones that they can attack.

Overall, I enjoyed this film and watched it twice, I pray that the authors hear find love in their hearts as Jesus wants them to.

My wife and I went to see this on Thursday, March 21. The theater was literally full - there was perhaps one remaining seat. The subject matter was interesting but the presentation was difficult to sit through. The two most annoying things were 1) that the melodramatic background music literally never stopped, and 2) worse, the narrator was a horrible reader. His words were clear and appropriately emphasized, but the pronunciation of the word "a" as a long "A" and of "the" as "thee" began to grate pretty quickly, and he treated every word this way, including Michael Chrichton's last name (as a heavily emphasized "Crike Ton" sounding like two words). It's hard to explain, but you would understand what I mean if you tried to sit through it.

Another irritation was the fact that they complained a lot about how scientists make fun of creationists, while they spoke in condescending tones and fake-laughed out loud on occasion when describing something they claimed that scientists believe (which was generally a drastic over-simplification of the facts).

Bizarrely, the generated video would have us think that the main animals on Earth 4000 years ago were dinosaurs. They made sure that dinosaurs appeared in nearly every scene. I can't imagine their reason for doing this, but I've read that their Ark Encounter is obsessed with dinosaurs as well.

Nevertheless, I heard some creationist arguments that I'd never heard before so it gave me some things to study. (I once believed in creationism myself, so I'm very interested in the subject.) One example is that of what are known as fossil trunks, upright fossil trees, or T0 assemblages, that the film refers to as "polystrate fossils." They claim that geologists cannot explain. (Unsurprisingly, geologists actually do understand this phenomenon.)

We stayed until my wife, who is a Christian and believes in the flood of Noah, couldn't take it anymore due to the tedious and annoying production. There were about 15-20 minutes left at this point. The end seemed to be heading toward an appeal to believe in the god of Israel and the threat of eternal punishment, though I can't say for sure.

Utter drivel, vegetarian t-rexs roaming around the mythical garden of eden with the even more mythical Adam and Eve. This really could be called comedy if the people claiming to be doctors weren't so serious in their narrative, Christian marketing has taken note of the popularity of Graham Hancock and co and the ancient aliens format to bring the feeble minded the oxymoronic science behind genesis, if your so desperate to believe well this is for you you'll get all the snappy science class PowerPoint presentations you can handle with pretty good CGI to be honest for the attention deficits out there, I live in middle earth and my best friends an orc.

A petition to those who are tempted to give 1 star, simply because they have heard the one fact that the movie is pushing back slow evolution: watch the thing. I have seen it over and over in the past years through my ministry, that those type of documentaries receive 10 stars or 1 star, with literally no spectrum in between. It is a matter of etiquette to watch & vote, or not to watch & -NOT- to vote.

I give 9 stars, based on the following pros & cons:

PROS

+ Great production quality.

+ Well investigated and clearly presented facts.

+ Good selection of scholars, without the pseudo-critical injections sometimes found in other documentaries, while leaving the viewer puzzled which parts ought to be endorsed.

+ One of the few documentaries which actually teaches the Good Message (towards the end, but with precision and love).

+ Excellent argument that museums intentionally do not show e.g. Dinos & ducks together, and create a twisted and more dramatized version of the whole thing.

+ It is also very important to point out that barely 40 years have passed since the new consensus had been established.

CONS

• It is probably not true that Eden was buried under hundreds of meters of material. The traditionally proposed Lower / Southern Mesopotamia lies barely at 34 meters ASL, while the Karaca Dag location in Upper Mesopotamia, discovered by Spire and this ministry in 2021, and also proposed by CMI some months later as landing site for the ark, lies still only at 498 meters ASL (plateau around the mountain; 1957 meters the mountain itself). 34 meters ASL do definitely exclude any additional layers and 498 meters do not provide much leverage. We often forget that everywhere material got added, elsewhere it needed to go. The flood stripped bare vast regions, while adding substantially to many other regions. I rather suspect by a look at the current condition, that Mesopotamia as a whole lost during the flood a significant substance (except the mountains which rose during and after the flood). Inspiration for another documentary.

• Usage of the later flood date which collides with the pyramids (2518/2348 BC versus the correct 3298 BC in the Greek OT) and 370 days duration versus the correct 360 days (equal to one year, see Rev 11:3, 13:5) provided in the Greek OT (from 27/02 until 27/02 = exactly one year, not from 17/02 until 27/02). A small detail, but a stumbling block for some unbelievers.

• I would have wished to see a little bit more on the abyss, e.g. To have a quick look at Ringwoodite, and to mention with some words the probable connection between the Pacific Ring of Fire (as localization for the underwater fissures) and the nearby Gran Canyon.

• Another very interesting point would have been the 2 great land bridges (Bering btw. Russia & US, 45 meters BSL; and Doggerland btw. Europe & GB, 35 meters BSL) which clearly existed until the flood.

Overall highly recommended. A wonderful documentary and a blessing to the world.

I had a great review about it the first time but that's only because I watched 20 minutes of it only and then when I finished the documentary, I realized it is nothing but pure biblical Christian propaganda for phonetics and so-called believers, and those people who are talking calling themselves. Doctors in the documentary are literally just part of why the world is a terrible place. They're accusing people of being nonbelievers, and they themselves believing all the, edited versions of the Bible and all these events that have been falsely communicated throughout history.

Next time you wanna make a documentary, make it based on pure facts and science without having your niche biblical religious propaganda shoved into it.