Is Genesis History? Mountains After the Flood

This well-produced documentary is well worth seeing. Truths are hidden in the small details. We need more films like this.

In Switzerland, we have geological folds that are far more impressive than those shown in this documentary (for example, the "Petite Dent de Morcle" or the "Ferdenrothorn"), but I can hardly find any research documents that give such clear and precise explanations. We need geological scientists like Dr Andrew Snelling and Dr John Whitemore in Europe.

When someone tells you about these folds, most people believe in the paradigm of hundreds of millions of years without having any critical sense. Science needs to be critical, especially forensic science.

Thank you for this documentary.

Mountains After the Flood is an inspiration to all free thinking people, it is so encouraging to see True Science finally beginning to catch up with the facts, instead of supporting a tired-old Darwinian false narrative. Thank you to the 'Is Genesis History' team for all your hard work, and honesty. This film is truly a gem that comes from the Rock.

Movies like this one will inspire a great deal of new knowledge and theories. Discoveries that are just waiting to be uncovered. I have been so discouraged in the past with the false science supporting the tired-old Darwinian false narrative. This movie, and others like it will give us all the encouragement that we need.

The Biblical recording of the Flood is probably one of the first miracles in the Bible to be refuted by science. One learned scholar once reported that, if all the water held in the Earth's atmosphere were to suddenly rain down, there would, indeed be a flood. But the depth would only be ~1 inch -- barely enough to float a canoe, much less a giant ark. The scientists who produced "Is Genesis History?" show, in amazing and convincing detail, how that theory doesn't work with the facts of what the geological record shows.

If you'd like to find peace between what your Bible says and what science verifies, WATCH THIS FILM!

This second film is not just an additional film, it is the most systematic and didactic approach seen so far. It was now a very positive surprise to see Thomas Purifoy and his team taking the viewpoint of the ordinary Christian, and really going to the basics.

It was especially helpful that they explained more in detail the crucial bending process and its implications, and not just presented results as so often seen in other documentaries.

Especially valuable is chapter 16 and 18 with Ray Strom, and my Spirit rejoiced when seeing this. We now finally see how scientists generate those samples and in great detail how they are able to not disturb the mineralogy of the sample as they go through the cutting and grinding processes, a question which resulted from earlier documentaries but was never answered.

Chapter 18 then is groundbreaking in showing the absolute proof why those bended rock formations can not have been composed during an ultra-slow evolution of time. Hallelujah!

CONS

• They did not explain why it is sufficient to constantly take samples only from accessible layers, meaning samples previously exposed to the weather and so to say scratched from the bare surface. Would it not be helpful to use equipment which is used in many commercial constructions in order to make core drillings? Then they could go at least 300/400/500mm into the rock and we would not only have the microscopic level, but also be able to see the change in structure with our own eyes. Why does every ordinary kitchen countertop (granite) have a much greater visible spectrum than those results they present?

ADDITIONAL INSPIRATION

• While the catastrophic dam burst of the reservoir behind East Kaibab Monocline would explain the final shape of the Gran Canyon, we still have not answered where the material for the sediments came from.

It is surprising that American geologists, although they have the Pacific Ring of Fire sitting right beside, have not realized the very probable connection between this and the flood.

1. 90+% of the flood waters came obviously not from a hydrological cycle, which -as its name already implies- is a cycle which cannot suddenly multiply its volume of total water contained. Vaporization played a very insignificant part in covering the earth with water. It is abstruse to assume that the majority of flood waters was hanging for ~2200 years somewhere over the clouds (the theory of Whitcomb et al), and we should not add in our minds the possibility that the water came in a supernatural manner through space.

2. 90+% of the flood waters came from the abyss, and ordinary springs and fountains spread all over the world would have hardly been sufficient to spontaneously flood the world. Even if all the existing springs would have multiplied its 'output', it would have taken years to cover the highest mountain before the flood (although much lower than today).

3. We have enormous fields of sediments in North America, and specifically in the Grand Canyon plain.

4. The question is: Is it sheer coincidence to have the Grand Canyon sitting mere 800 km next to the Pacific Ring of Fire? Two of the world's most particular structures next to each other and no flood scientist having noticed this?

Should we not strongly assume that underwater fissures along the Pacific Ring of Fire would have been not one of-, but probably the main source for the flood waters spilling out of the mantle of the earth, while simultaneously carrying on its way enormous amounts of other materials which resulted in the highly unusual elevated plains in North America?

QUOTE OF THE DOCUMENTARY

"... this is just incredible evidence that the Coconino was made underwater. You can't make these kinds of things in a desert. I presented this at a national geology meeting and I had a scientist come up that knew I was a young earth creationist and was skeptical about all the work I had done. And every geologist would look at that and know that those were ooids, except-- - Except if Coconino was in front of the name. - Isn't that interesting? - Yeah. - As soon as it was Coconino-- - So it was just, "I don't want to see this." - Yeah, he just would not look at it, would not admit, would not even study them to see if they were ooids or not. And he just said, "Nope, those can't be ooids. "Those aren't ooids." And wanted to drop the subject almost immediately. I pressed him on it a little bit, but he didn't want to go any further on it. - That's what happens when someone is captive in a paradigm. They don't want to see any evidence that's contrary to that paradigm, and that's what was happening to him. - Yeah, that's one of the neat things that we do as creation scientists. We have a different way of looking at things, and so we tend to collect data and look for data that probably other people miss, or probably they might've seen it, but they really don't think very deeply about it and think about the implications."

This is a wonderful follow up to the first movie where we get to see the process of how creation science is done. I had been waiting years for this movie to be released after it was announced and it did not disappoint. Creation science is often mocked for not being "real science" and this movie does a great job of showing the process that is used and how data is collected. After watching the film it is reassuring to see that creation science is as real as it gets and it is the conventional view that has to overlook real data to support their position. It is amazing to see the power of God in his creation and this movie showcases a group of men truly seeking answers that confirm the bible.