6 of 20 people found the following review helpful
Nice to look at, poorly researched.,
This review is from: God Of Wonders [DVD] New Multi-language version (DVD)
This DVD contains stunning images of awe inspiring beauty that make you feel privileged to be alive. The camera work, and some of the scientific facts are mind blowing, it's really stuff to make the hairs on your arms stand on end.
Much of the commentary however is very very inaccurate, to the point of being misleading. I think the problem is, is that interviews come from the likes of John Lisle PH.d of The Creation Museum in Kentucky, USA (a few minutes on google will expose as a pretty vile institution which Christians all over the world are protesting against for the perpetuation of outright lies.) The introduction itself opens with a few lines from Dr. John Whitcomb, another creationist who can be found on youtube discussing The Ark as if it literally happened, he steers clear of exposing the fallacy of his thinking on this DVD but it does seriously make me question the other other facts and opinions presented in this DVD.
If you want something more scientifically credible I'd recommend Cosmos by Carl Sagan, The Wonders of the Solar System by Brian Cox, or anything David Attenborough has made, they are also beautifully filmed. As regards the religious and philosophical points in this DVD I'm going to have to spend a little time looking into them as the credibility of information in the DVD is very much compromised.
3* for the nice camera work, one or two interesting points and some good questions raised - I'd recommend this DVD for its visuals, or the starting point for some more serious research.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 17 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 26 Feb 2013 16:08:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Feb 2013 16:09:27 GMT
T. S. C. says:
I really enjoyed reading your review of this DVD, but I don't think after reading yours and other reviews I'll be buying it anytime soon. Being a Christian, I do wonder why a number of people professing a faith in God, especially the Bible-belt American variety, those who seem to confuse extreme Right-wing conservative politics with Christianity, seem to do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot every time they speak about their Christian faith. Personally, I do believe in creation and not evolution and natural selection, and I do believe in some kind of Ark experience, but being open-minded I can see why people might have a problem with the Ark story. The problem with DVD's like this is that if someone uses plausible lies to back up their story, no one will believe anything they say, and will at the same time wonder why they are lying, so giving Christianity, and Christians, a bad name.
My own point is simply this; why can't we Christians produce something as credible as Cosmos, The Wonders of the Solar System and so on, whilst still retaining the belief in our faith; is that so difficult to do? Whatever your viewpoint, Christian or atheist or whatever you believe or don't believe, we can all agree on one thing; that the world of nature and the wonders of science and the universe out there are wonderful things to behold.
Posted on 4 Aug 2013 19:26:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 4 Aug 2013 19:30:52 BDT
A very ignorant viewpoint from someone of whom I would query to be a Christian. The subject of 'God of Wonders' is surely that and yet you turn to a professed atheist for 'credibility' !!!!
You really do need to reconsider the EVIDENCE of a Creator God who is NOT disproven by science - certainly not the supposed (un)scientific teachings of an old age earth and evolution which are total conjectures built on sand and flie in the face of both their own (scientific) laws and actual EVIDENCE! Such things even make Jesus out to be a liar.
If you are a Christian your 'god' is too small - do some proper research before criticising His work and just admiring the pretty pictures.
Be nervous, if you believe in evolution: -> www.evolutionVsGod.com
Evolution Vs God: DVD Release Date August 7, 2013:
Watch the trailer (Over 312,000 Views) -> http://bit.ly/1352HUE
Don't want to wait? Get it Today - > http://bit.ly/188W7Qj
Posted on 8 Aug 2013 13:19:08 BDT
John C. P. Smith says:
Sir, in your review you state that "[m]uch of the commentary . . . is very very inaccurate". Which parts exactly do you mean? Could you give some examples please?
I think the "John Lisle" you quote is actually "Jason Lisle", who left the Creation Museum in 2012 to become Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research.
Having visited the Creation Museum three times (and briefly met Dr Lisle), I cannot agree with your assessment of it being "a pretty vile institution". I am also shocked by your statement that "Christians all over the world are protesting against [it] for the perpetuation of outright lies". I have never met any such Christians who are protesting against the Creation Museum.
The accusations you make are very serious. Have you visited the museum yourself? Please could you substantiate your criticisms with evidence. What "outright lies" is the museum perpetuating?
For myself, in working my way carefully through the exhibits several times, I did not encounter any "outright lies" or indeed anything to cause me serious concern. In fact, in my opinion, it is a world-class museum with superb and thought-provoking exhibits, and friendly staff. Undoubtedly it is not appreciated by everyone, largely because it portrays a different worldview from the widely promoted atheistic/evolutionary one. In that, I think it is thoroughly refreshing! It is hugely encouraging for Christians, and stimulating and challenging even for non-Christians.
Just because someone believes that the Ark was real (e.g. John Whitcomb) doesn't make him unreliable. Of course there are many, such as yourself, who choose not to believe in the Flood. Indeed, 2,000 years ago the Bible prophetically warned that "in the last days scoffers will come . . . [who] deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and . . . the world of that time was deluged and destroyed" (2 Peter 3:3-6, New International Version). But there are many accounts of a catastrophic flood recorded by different people groups all over the world, which (though different in their details) are consistent with the Genesis Flood in the key elements. As no-one living was there to witness the events of the distant past, it is all a matter of how you interpret the evidence, according to your worldview/religion. I believe that the evidence from flood narratives, geology, and fossils supports the Biblical account of a world-wide catastrophic flood far more consistently than millions of years of slow deposition and evolution.
I can certainly agree with you about the stunning images and nice camera work on this DVD.
John C.P. Smith
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Sep 2013 10:57:09 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Sep 2013 11:06:13 BDT
In order to be considered credible, no matter who it is made by or for, it generally has to present facts backed up by verifiable evidence like those mentioned as examples in this users review. This movie however is far, far, far from doing that, and targets those without the basic knowledge to know better.
It is of course perfectly possible to be scientific and also be christian, some of the greatest scientists of all time believed in a god, whether or not it be the christian god, but faith and science really do need to be kept separate at this point since, at least as the evidence currently stands and despite what this video tries to make out, the idea of a god/creator is not science.
Actually it was a very well reasoned point, just because it took into account the very inconveinient fact (for you) that certain people being interviewed are known to be poorly educated in science does not mean it is ignorant.
Also it is not down to science to disprove god, you make the claim, you show the evidence that led you to that claim. If the world worked thus "I believe this, and it's true if you can't disprove it", we wouldn't be where we are now. It's called the scientific method.
And J C Smith
It is a vile institution because it tries to pass itself as scientific, whilst never providing a shred of scientific evidence, and in doing is more than happy to corrupt the education of young children. Even a large proportion of christians find it, and any one associated with it, ridiculous.
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Sep 2013 11:16:30 BDT
Mr Bailey - Your science claims that matter was created from nothing, exploded for no reason and from that we have everything. Not a very good THEORY/Hypothesis/Conjecture. The vileness lies in your 'Science' which pre-supposes that there is no God and will only reach conclusions which exclude Him. A true SCIENCE tests its theories and can only realise them as FACTS if the THEORY fully works, is evidenced and all other explanations are disproven. Naturalistic Evolution tries to make any evidence fit its THEORY and excludes those don't.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Oct 2013 17:57:16 BDT
To D's post on 4 Aug 2013 > Beautifully put!
I studied veterinary medicine as an undergraduate and was raised a devout evolutionist and atheist. However, my views are polar opposite now and after doing some private research (mostly on the internet) I cannot believe I held my previous views on evolution and the age of the earth, for example. Thorough and proper research reveals interesting scientific considerations which are never presented in the classroom. I now believe in the literal Biblical account and I still love science. These two topics are not at odds with each other but unfortunately the media and many institutions portray them to be. So does the majority opinion mean that we cannot think and check out the facts for ourselves? I hope some people will take the time to work out the truth and find Christ on the way.
I would recommend this DVD, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed plus DVDs from the Australian geologist, John MacKay. In addition, an excellent 6mins logistical explanation of the Ark can be found on the Reasons for Hope webpage: http://rforh.com/store/index.php/dvds/deb
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Oct 2013 19:36:06 BDT
Thank you E. What really upsets me is the fact that modern education institutions don't present a balanced approach to the subject. As a Christian, I would hope that religious teachings in schools &c provide balanced, objective, factual teaching (which they don't) and similarly with science. They seem to run scared of any mention of Creation and don't even evaluate the facts from both sides of the argument. Not really very scientific.
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2013 17:43:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2013 17:56:37 BDT
E (though I can't shake the feeling that you are infact D), first of all there is no such thing as a "devout atheist/evolutionist", you cannot be devout to a lack of belief in a god, and a scientific fact, so forgive me if I'm skeptical about that claim. I've never understood why creationists think we work the same way they do.
Mentioning a qualification is not evidence, it's an appeal to authority in the hope that people will not question what you say and ask for evidence. The fact that you took veterinary medicine does not mean you have some sort of special knowledge that puts you in a better position to criticise. I also took similar courses, and they focus on the treatment of animals, evolutionary biology is in no way a main focus. I'm sorry but I can't find any other way to put this, but if you can honestly swallow the biblical account and treat it as fact then you are clearly not as bright as you make out. There is utterly no evidence to support it's claims, no evidence of miracles for example, and if you had actually done your research (and by research I do not mean answers in genesis, and it's creation "scientists" who wouldn't know the scientific method if kicked them up the backside) all the scientific data actually points away from the bible being even remotely correct. For example Noah's flood, which according to the bible flooded the whole planet, yet strangely left zero geological evidence. Or that the Earth is supposed to be only 6,000 years old, despite the geological evidence to the contrary.
By accepting the bible account you willfully ignore the vast array of scientific evidence that tells things just a tad differently, in favour of your own personal preference.
I might also add I've watched no intelligence allowed, and it's the most intellectually dishonest, and unscientific stuff I've watched, up there with the likes of Ray Comfort's Evolution Vs God. Ben Stein is (in)famous for his lack of ability to be scientific, or unbiased in regards to his beliefs, much like other young earth creationists.
And D, "Your science claims that matter was created from nothing, exploded for no reason and from that we have everything" first of all no, that is not what scientists say. In all honesty we don't know what set off the big bang, it might have been something, it might have been nothing, at this stage we haven't a clue. On that same token we also see no evidence that god did it, anymore so than we do for anything else that you people claim god did. Also, as is often the case with you people, you talk about that and evolution as if they're the same. The theory you just talked about is the Big Bang, which is within the field of cosmology. Evolution on the other hand explains the diversity of life, it is a theory within the field of biology. If you can't even make this basic distinction then you have no business telling anyone that they are not scientific.
Also the reason creation not taught on an equal level with science, as if it were fact, is because the creation myth is not science, it is an unsubstantiated creation myth. Science classes teach SCIENCE. We do look at both sides, the problem is you lot just make stuff up as you go. That my friend is not scientific.
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2013 00:29:07 BDT
Mr Bailey, What a load of presumptuous tosh: "Your science claims that matter was created from nothing, exploded for no reason and from that we have everything" first of all no, that is not what scientists say. In all honesty we don't know what set off the big bang, it might have been something, it might have been nothing, at this stage we haven't a clue."
You're right - you haven't a clue - so tou presume that it wasn't God and presume that it was some unscientific event.
You continue in the same vein: "On that same token we also see no evidence that god did it, anymore so than we do for anything else that you people claim god did. Also, as is often the case with you people, you talk about that and evolution as if they're the same. The theory you just talked about is the Big Bang, which is within the field of cosmology. Evolution on the other hand explains the diversity of life, it is a theory within the field of biology. If you can't even make this basic distinction then you have no business telling anyone that they are not scientific."
Take a look at the true meaning of 'SCIENTIFIC'. As I said, 'A true SCIENCE tests its theories and can only realise them as FACTS if the THEORY fully works, is evidenced and all other explanations are disproven.'
You then conclude with your totally ridiculous contradictory statement: "Also the reason creation not taught on an equal level with science, as if it were fact, is because the creation myth is not science, it is an unsubstantiated creation myth. Science classes teach SCIENCE. We do look at both sides, the problem is you lot just make stuff up as you go. That my friend is not scientific."
Like you said my friend - you don't have a clue - BUT YOU KNOW THAT IT ISN'T GOD - Make your mind up
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2013 13:32:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Oct 2013 13:46:17 BDT
What you're doing now is twisting things, and my words. We don't "presume there is no god", we see no evidence for it's existence therefore we see no reason to assume it was god. At a stretch I would say it "might" be god, but there's no evidence for it at all, and until I see any evidence to the contrary I see no reason to assume it was. Also take into account the fact that so many things you people say was done by god have actually turned out to have natural causes, explainable by science, and it feels reasonable to conclude god doesn't exist. But I say again that if evidence actually appears that it does exist then I will think differently. It is you people who, and who often admit, presume that god exists first and then try to twist things to make it look like you have evidence. We don't presume to know what the cause of the big bang is at all, you're just getting angry because we refuse to presume that it was a god when there is no evidence.
As for the whole "scientists test theories" try actually looking into how scientists in cosmology do stuff, and whilst you're at it check out the hubble constant. You might learn a thing or two as to where the theory of the big bang comes from. There are reasons, it's not like your beliefs which are just based on a fairy tale and made up as you go. Infact if "god did it" was a scientific theory the amount of times it has failed to stand up as an explanation for hows things occur it would have been thrown out centuries ago. That however is the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief, scientific theories are either modified or scrapped based on new evidence, a religious belief carries on the same despite all the battering it takes from evidence of better explanations.
My final statement was not contradictory. The creation myth is unsubstantiated myth. When you believe in the biblical account of things happening, despite all the scientific evidence in support of the total opposite, your belief becomes unscientific and cannot be taught as fact because it ignores facts. I have not contradicted myself at all, I just refuse to entertain your personal preference until evidence for it actually appears for once.