Is Genesis History?

I was expecting a serious look at Genesis aND a serious look at science. We got a serious look at Genesis but nothing very scientific.

I found two items of particular trouble, one was a supposed scientist who said "we think" atomic decay rates have changed over time. We can tell by stars billions of light years away that the same weak nuclear force today was in effect as far back as we can see, tens of billions of years ago. The universe would not exist if the weak nuclear force was as unstable to cause over 10 orders of magnitide of difference as is suggested by that alleged scientist.

Also the fossil evidence explanation they have that the flood waters receding and rising caused different ecosystems that brought about different animals cursed with claw and tooth from the original sin. We don't see any of the types of animals Noah saved in those fossil layers along with prehistoric fishes, so a very poor explanation. In fact, we don't see armored fishes with early mammals either, or even in the dinosaur layers.

The evidence is very one sided and very weak. Because they refused to offer any alternative counter argument it made it seem like less a search for the truth, and more like propaganda hiding behind loads of strawman arguments and dishonesty, distraction or pseudoscience.

If you want the truth you'll have to go somewhere else. If you want pseudoscience to help you close your mind off to the truth, this is the perfect film. Just be sure to avoid all genuine scientific analysis and counter arguments to the very weak arguments supplied by this film and your mythology will remain safe from rational and objective thought. It's about faith, not fact, and that is why they don't call faith, truth.

I gave 3 stars because they had nice filming locations, and the people in the film did not insult the vast majority of scientists who agree that the universe is billions of years old for millions of interlocking reasons.

Look, if you're not a scientist or a geologist, it ultimately doesn't matter whether you believe that the ancient Book of Genesis is fact or fiction. You'll probably go your entire life unaffected ultimately by your belief on an ancient flood, or a deity creation myth, or anything in the Book of Genesis.

That being said, what struck me the most about this documentary was this wasn't made from facts, it was made from statements of belief.

"I believe...."

"I believe...."

etc. Through the ENTIRE documentary, over and over and over.

These are BELIEFS. That's all.

If you think this doc might answer the question "Is Genesis history?", unfortunately it was not and will not be answered.

Maybe one day we'll get the documentary that many have wanted "What parts of Genesis are based on fact?", but until then, we'll have to settle for pseudo-scientists and others waving their hands at the Grand Canyon and regurgitating quasi-scientific technobabble.

Noah's Flood is a much older story than the one that is included in the Bible. Flood myths stretch back thousands of years before the Bible. We even found one, in The Epic of Gilgamesh, virtually identical, except someone else building a boat, not "Noah".

So the "literal" flood is a retelling of a story that didn't even involve anyone named Noah.

The documentary didn't even notice this little fact, so what else did it leave out while talking endlessly about what they believe the Bible says? So a book that's been translated, not once, but three times into modern English. Ancient Hebrew to Ancient Greek to Latin to Vulgate Latin to English contains accurate history and nothing else?

OK...time to move on to another documentary...

The definition of delusion is a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary according to Mirriam-Webster. I would like to be respectful of the assertions made in this film but honestly, I have too much respect for "facts" and science to "suspend disbelief" in the same way required to enjoy a fiction. Just another desperate (and deluded) attempt to reconcile a fable with science.

Curious how this movie was received, I came to check out the reviews and was very disappointed with the posts on here. I feel like an honest review is needed to hopefully provide a moderate's perspective.

First off, do not watch this movie as a way to definitively answer the debates that have lasted for years and years and years and years. The people rating this film low under war cries of no in-depth science need to realize that they are being foolish. The movie highlights the scientific communities unyielding devotion to one theory of the planets creation and it invites people to consider a different perspective. If you want a full-fledged dissertation on the intricacies of geology, philosophy, and historical credibility, maybe you should go sign up at a university; a two-hour film is not going to be able to deliver this. I agree the movie could use more visual aids and helpful cinematic (the constant shots of two men talking got old after a while), but, lets be honest here, even if there were, many of the low-rating critics would still say it didn't cover X, Y, and Z.

Secondly, if you're already ingrained into one ideology with no room for considering the possibility that an alternative explanation could be plausible, then don't watch this movie. Any intellectual conversation that furthers open discussion has to begin with both parties willing to entertain the idea they might be wrong. Know that you will end the movie with more questions than when you started. Or at least you should, if you're truly searching for the answers to big questions like the ones presented in the movie. If your ultimate goal is to jump on IMDb and hurl accusations about the Creationists or Young Earthers or (insert encompassing term here), why even bother watching it?

Overall, the movie was good from a speculative approach. The stories are mentioned in passing and much of the time is spent looking at geological records to validate The Great Flood. This challenges conventional, long-held beliefs about the age of Earth, and it encourages inquiring minds to look further into the alternative arguments.

I gave it a 3 because it's very well made with excellent production values. However, it's such a godawful load of crap that I can't even be bothered giving an example, except to say that it quickly devolves from outlandish claims about the origins of various geological formations to going on and on about the Bible.