Is Genesis History? Mountains After the Flood

After viewing this film I walked away amazed. Ait goes through the science of how this world was reshaped after the flood. A great sequel to the first movie. It explains in depth the Biblical view of how the earth was designed by a intelligent creator, not a process that took millions of years. A must see to answer how to defend your views scientifically.

The movie prooves that a Christian's view can be addressed with n a scientific way. It painstakingly takes you through the steps in the science of Geology to prove there was a worldwide flood. It starts where the first movie ended, n the Grand Canyon. With it's massive canyon walls pointing the way to an intelligent designer creating our world in a short (less than millions of years) view of creation.

If you are reading reviews for this film, chances are that you have already seen the first film in this series, "Is Genesis History?". If you haven't, most reviewers would probably recommend that you go and watch "Is Genesis History" first, then return to this film. However, I would offer an alternative (and perhaps life-changing) piece of advice: Don't waste your time watching "Is Genesis History." Shocking, I know, but hear me out.

Whether you are a Christian looking for further confirmation of the veracity of Scripture, a skeptic seeking solid scientific evidence of the Biblical account of Creation as recorded in Genesis, or someone who wants to figure out how people can be so stupid as to fall for this crazy Creationism nonsense, the original "Is Genesis History" film will be of little use to you. The editing is uneven, the conversations are often boring, the location changes are arbitrary, and the overall story is incohesive at best and incoherent at worst. While this sequel ("Mountains After the Flood") improves greatly in all of those areas, it still falls short of what I believe the producers had in mind.

In order for you to understand what went wrong, you need to understand how the production of this film and its predecessor proceeded: Dr. Del Tackett, the narrator of both films, interviewed a large number of scientists and specialists in various locations. These interviews were then condensed down and edited together with transitional landscape shots, some music, and a few animations.

As you can probably guess, a film almost entirely composed of interviews and dialogue between two people requires very tight editing in order to keep viewers engaged and help them remember key points. Much like a PowerPoint presentation, documentary-style films need to regularly review what has been covered in order to remind viewers of the most important information. This is often helped with title cards, on-screen subtitles, and regular recaps. However, "Mountains After the Flood"--as with the original film--was not properly editing for comprehensibility. The content is excellent, but the sections that were selected, and the order in which they are presented, do not flow together smoothly.

I must disclose that I watched this film before its general release, and after providing my honest feedback to the production team, I was disappointed to see that no major improvements were made to the overall flow of the film. My disappointment has nothing to do with my ego and everything to do with my concern that this latest installment in the "Is Genesis History?" series will not be clear, concise, and engaging enough to reach a wide audience.

However, all is not lost. In an ironic twist, the production team behind these two films have unintentionally solved the pacing and editing problems by releasing the original interviews in unedited form. At first glance, it would seem that watching the original interviews in their entirety would be overkill, since the films are simply a "greatest hits" editor's cut of the same interviews. But the editing of the films does a great disservice to the original interviews, sacrificing depth and clarity for breadth and speed. Picking the interviews that sound the most interesting, watching them one at a time, and taking time to think about each one before beginning another solves all of the problems that I have with these films.

Instead of forcing a narrative onto the scientists, this new format allows the original interviews to speak for themselves, thus making them far more convincing. The scientists themselves are also fascinating, and letting them speak uninterrupted actually improves the logical and emotional impact of their interviews.

The interviews from the first film were remarkably numerous and varied, so they have been released in three volumes, based on subject matter: -Volume 1: Rocks & Fossils (geology, paleontology, atmospheric science) -Volume 2: Life & Design (biology, genetics) -Volume 3: Bible & Stars (archaeology, astronomy, history, culture, theology)

All together, these three volumes are appropriately called "Beyond Is Genesis History", because they provide an opportunity for viewers to delve deeper into the real substance of these interviews.

The upcoming fourth volume (Mountains & Microscopes) will continue the series of "Beyond Is Genesis History" by releasing uninterrupted interviews with the scientists and specialists featured in the second feature film.

If you take my advice and watch some of the excellent content in the "Beyond Is Genesis History" series instead of getting confused by the two feature-length movies, you will be rewarded with an unparalleled understanding of just what science truly tells us about our world.

Let me be clear: if it weren't for the "Beyond Is Genesis History" series, I would not be writing this review. Because these volumes of original interviews exist, and because their episodic format is so much easier to understand and digest than the choppy full-length films, I can confidently say that the "Is Genesis History" project is definitely worth your time. Just not the films. Especially not the first one.

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."

Truly appalling nonsense that is a disgrace to our collective intelligence. It would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous. These are desperate lies that will fool some, and for that we must stand up against this evil.

1 star for the wide shots, they're quite beautiful, and inversely proportional to the propaganda in this film. Religion has been a stain on all humankind for thousands of years, and this is yet more evidence. The producers should be ashamed of themselves, as no doubt some who were involved with the production would be.

Look for their next so-called documentaries - The Earth Is Flat, Witchcraft Is Real, Vaccines Send You To Hell.

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.