How the Earth Was Made: Season 2

2010 ,    » 28 Comments
Ratings: 5.19/10 from 16 users.

How the Earth Was Made: Season 2This season, How the Earth Was Made goes back in history from 4.5 billion years ago to today peeling back layers of rock, filling up river canyons, parting the oceans, and leveling mountains and volcanoes to investigate the origins of some of the most well-known locations and geological phenomena in the world.

With rocks as their clues and volcanoes, ice sheets and colliding continents as their suspects, scientists launch a forensic investigation that will help viewers visualize how the Earth has evolved and formed over millions of years.

Episodes included: Grand Canyon, Vesuvius, Birth of the Earth, Sahara, Yosemite, The Rockies, Ring of Fire, Everest, Death Valley, Mt. St. Helens, Earth s Deadliest Eruption, America's Ice Age, and America's Gold.

More great documentaries

28 Comments / User Reviews

    Nicholas Horlocker
  1. Nicholas Horlocker

    Thought the first season was great and very informational/clear, will probably watch this entire series before the end of the day. I never found geology that interesting until this show, highly recommended!

  2. englishgirlinjapan
  3. englishgirlinjapan

    Vlatko, what were you thinking when you added yet more of these dumbing down, puerile nonsense American shows of How the Earth was Made and MonsterQuest to this awesome doc site? More intellectual and educational BBC docs please!

  4. dteubner
  5. dteubner

    Good doc.

  6. Bethel11
  7. Bethel11

    Peril! Danger! Geology is the unseen threat below our feet! Please.... This is crap

  8. Jimnal
  9. Jimnal

    Lets face it geology is not one of the easiest or interesting sciences to make a documentary on I think thats why this doc goes a bit over the top in places but its really not as bad as some people are saying and I found at least a few of the episodes rather informative.

  10. MrTame
  11. MrTame

    great doc

  12. MrTame
  13. MrTame

    This is a doc site, and this is a documentary. I thank him for his contribution.
    From what other people are saying this seems to be a decent documentary.
    So geology isn't your thing - you can always go watch a documentary about almost ANYTHING else here.
    I'll be looking forward to your next contribution englishgirlinjapan.

    have a great day!

  14. Yavanna
  15. Yavanna

    "From what other people are saying this seems to be a decent documentary."

    So you haven't actually watched it yourself - you are just trolling the opinion of someone who has, and clearly has better taste and standards.

    No one has said geology isn't "their thing" for being the reason why this doc is considered poor.

  16. Top_Quark
  17. Top_Quark

    @englishgirlinjapan, partly agree with you. BBC surely makes the best science documentaries and only Nova (PBS) in America comes close to its quality. Discovery, Nat Geo and History Channel have totally lost it in the past few years with their emphasis on 'Reality', 'Mystery' and ‘dumbed down’ science. But this series was great, makes you appreciate how old the earth is and how it has changed over 4.5B years. Hope they bring out Season 3 as well.

  18. KiwiKev
  19. KiwiKev

    I have watched about 6 of them so far and have enjoyed them alot. very good quality docos.

  20. Emanuella Svensson
  21. Emanuella Svensson

    i allways read the comments before i wach any of the docs.
    comments like yavannas make me angry. no you dont know about
    everything and you really dont have to criticize everyone who dont have
    the same taste as you. who said that what you think is good realy is good?

  22. Emanuella Svensson
  23. Emanuella Svensson

    thanks vlatko.

    it dosent mather if this one is good or bad. your are doing a good job maintaining this site and by adding so many different docs within the same subject, you really get a bigger picture of it that way.

    sorry for my bad english, and once again. THANK YOU AND KEEP UP THE WORK!!!

  24. Yavanna
  25. Yavanna

    So disregard my comments then. As previously said; there is no dislike button. Vlatko is well aware of this and insists we show dislikes within our comments as appropriate. If you have special needs then "docs" like this will no doubt interest, entertain and educate you. I could point you towards some telly-tubby videos if you want...

    Yes it does matter if a doc is good or bad. If ANY information as opposed to good information is what you desire then by all means watch any sludge you want as it will clearly make no impact on you whatsoever nor will anyone care. If however you are a discerning viewer then yes sometimes my opinion does count.

    I'm glad I made you angry but you should rather feel pity for the poor Americans who are force fed this bilge like 8 year old students; rather than rage at me.

  26. MatarD
  27. MatarD

    I think both seasons are worth watching - I only watch a few of these a long ones and this was one of them.

    It is especially interesting because it brings out the logic and reasoning behind geology. It has some of the normally annoying action narrating, but here I find it OK - if not good.

    * Warning - mentally disturbed posting bellow*

  28. Pauline Carr
  29. Pauline Carr

    Outstanding series =)

  30. Justin Lesniewski
  31. Justin Lesniewski

    there is nothing so ugly as a human being acting an elitist, it is nothing more than a self styled religion. I dont know what your about, but I've seen a few of these doc's and they were interesting. I mean, really we're glad that you are armed with all the facts perhaps you shouldnt be on this documentary site where people are still "learning"

  32. Fake Name
  33. Fake Name

    Good and bad are objective, not factual. To state your opinion in such a way as to imply it is factual, is an indicator that you can not discern data from theory. This is a very common trait amongst individuals with little education but a great deal of self-importance. And please do feel bad for us poor American's, our education system is atrocious yet we continue to produce leaders in maths and sciences. This is a trait of our national spirit, in that if we can not be given what we need to know, we will find it for ourselves, as many of my countrymen and women do everyday when they visit this site. Please have a "good" day, whatever form "good" takes for you personally :)

  34. Yavanna
  35. Yavanna

    It's tiresome to even find a reason to reply to such comments. Especially when someone starts talking like a dalek about facts and data and doesn't even understand the difference between the meaning of objective and subjective. Stick to words you understand and give the thesaurus a break.

    Of course my opinion is SUBJECTIVE, but in other respects I am being objective by warning people that in my opinion it is a bad doc and worth skipping.

    @MatarD It's spelt "below"

    @Justin Lesniewski "there is nothing so ugly as a human being acting an elitist, it is nothing more than a self styled religion."

    I assume that was for me? Helps if you reply directly so as I get the comment. Now please explain it, because I assure you there is a zero percentage of religiosity at my end. There is something more ugly though; it's a human being pretending to be indignant and clever without the linguistic ability to pull it off. Surely your time could be better spent.

    Now why don't you guys focus on watching the docs. And just in case you find them good explain why! Instead of attacking someone else's opinion.

  36. jack ass
  37. jack ass

    americans are real dumb ya no like ol bubba down der back louzianna way were us smart niggas real no ur stuff we r american two ya knbow and we r real smart to not like dem white boyz who donme tink they bno everthang

  38. Timothy Urbach
  39. Timothy Urbach

    too bad you haven't learned to speak or spell yet

  40. over the edge
  41. over the edge

    could you please back up your claim that "Science can only "speculate" the age of the earth" ?

  42. Achems_Razor
  43. Achems_Razor

    What do you think that SCIENCE lies about and which ones are you tying to remove? (and to replace with what??)

  44. MAllen Documentaires
  45. MAllen Documentaires

    Pardon the poor indexing as I use my phone to reply.
    You ask a great question it's almost as if you know the answer since it's not hard to obtain a school textbook.
    Not saying this in bad way I just know others might think you and I may already know each other and your asking questions I want to be asked. Trust me over the years you would be amazed the situations I have encountered,not to mention the false accusations I have had to defend myself from. With that said let me unpack my old 9300 laptop so i can give you many examples of the many lies in the textbooks in colleges and public schools across America.

  46. MAllen Documentaires
  47. MAllen Documentaires

    Yes it's very simple Scientists use fossils,radiometric carbon dating, and meteors to try and come of with different ages in Dinosaur bones, fossils and rocks.They determine from these results that the earth is 4.6 "Billion' years old. So it gets printed in the texts books, I'm sure if you have time you can go grab a few books and see for yourself. Since the word "Science" and "Scientists" is so well respected by teachers and students why would anyone question them? And if your in school or college reading a book that says the earth is 4.6 "Billion" years old why would you listen to a documentary film producer posting in a forum? Well the truth is Radiometric carbon darting is flawed and if you Google its flaws you will see time after time how bones from the same dinosaur sent to three different scientific laboratories comes back with three different dates, Why is that? and how come it's not mentioned in the text books? Now I must warn you many of the research and laboratory results end up on "young Earth" sites and "Creation" sites which I don't promote or support I am an independent researcher that is only out for the "facts" I don't support "Evolution" "Darwin" "the Bible" "Jesus" or any other religion I consider myself a supporter od A.D. Alternative design. We step back and let the ignorant Darwin supports argue with the stubborn Bible thumper's as they are called. We have no agenda to promote any cult or organization. if there is anything we support it is the "Bottom line" the "facts" and exposing lies to the students. But to answer your original question "could you please back up your claim that "Science can only "speculate" the age of the earth" ? Go look at the different times Science has changed the age of the one time it was 900 million years old another time physicist William Thomson published calculations that fixed the age of Earth at between 20 million and 400 million years.
    He "assumed " that Earth had formed as a completely molten object, and
    determined the amount of time it would take for the near-surface to cool
    to its present temperature. but there was a problem.Geologists had trouble "accepting such a short age for Earth". Biologists
    could accept that Earth might have a finite age, but even 100 million
    years seemed much too short to be plausible. Charles Darwin, who had studied Lyell's work, had proposed his theory of the evolution of organisms by natural selection,
    a process whose combination of random heritable variation and
    cumulative selection implies great expanses of time. (Geneticists have
    subsequently measured the rate of genetic divergence of species, using the molecular clock, to date the last universal ancestor of all living organisms no later than 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago it goes on and on..not sure the limit on replies so i will wait to reply again but I will ask you a question. If you found drugs and booze in the car you lent your son how many different explanations will you allow him to give you "there was just me in the car" "oh wait it was me and a friend" "hold on it was me and two friends" how long before you realized your being lied to? The truth is Science has no idea how old the solar system is and can't even figure out how it got here but its in black and white in the text books. "12 Billion years ago there was a big bang" that's just one of many lies that needs to be corrected. Don't you agree?

  48. MAllen Documentaires
  49. MAllen Documentaires

    Lets go down the you know about the embryo chart? Well if you pick up a school biology text book it will show the different stages in the human fetus. The Ernst Haeckel embryo chart was exposed as a fraud back in the 1800s and yet its in the textbooks today I know it takes awhile to update school books but this is from 1868 how much time do the publishers need?

  50. MAllen Documentaires
  51. MAllen Documentaires

    I like the way you slip in the word "Adjustments" is that a nice way of saying Science was wrong? And even if I agree there needs to be adjustments, why is it the "Science books" do ever get adjusted? And before you accuse me of not posting any evidence about the age of the earth keep in mind I'm still traveling and have yet to access my hard drives at home, The only reason I brought up the fossils and carbon dating was so others can see how Science and the text books are not 100 or even 85 % correct. You fail to realize Scientist use the layers of earth to determine the age of a certain fossil so how can you say fossils are not used? And if your going to pull out the " radiometric carbon dating is only good for items up to approx 60 000 years" card then you have to answer how Science got the earth as 4.6 billion years old?

    Your actually proving my point science can only speculate. But since your asking questions then I have a few for you. If comets are a result of the big bang that took place 12 billion year sago why is the oldest comet ever recorded as 15,000 years old and why is it still burning? Shouldn't it has burned out by now? And please don't pull out the "ort cloud" card that is one of the worst fantasy fair tails science has come up with, its actually laughable. another question since the universe is constantly expanding and spreading out why is it the moon is so close to earth?

    Since mirrors were placed on the moon and laser beams are able to not only get the correct distance the moon is to the earth science has realized its drifting away from earth at a rate of about 3 inches a year. if the earth is 4.6 billion years old and you bring the moon back 3 inches a year where do you think the moon would be? Also have you noticed the oldest tree found was 20,000 years old and the oldest coral reef is 42.000 to 50,000 years old? You would think if the earth was at least 1/2 a billion years old we would have a million year old reef? here is your quote "scientific method is the best explanation we have for the natural world. " That is a major cop out. that's like saying my bird is missing the cat must of ate it "it's the best explanation we have" No it's the best explanation that can keep you from admitting there might be an outside force who had a part in the solar system. And since its already in the text books it must be true, after all what else could be the reason? You see that is where you and the creasonist butt heads i don't support either side so dont try and drag me in to your argument as i will support any evidence you find you should support mine unless you have an agenda I know I don't the rest of your quote
    "as for evolution it is a fact" there went your credibility its not a fact its hardly a theory at best, its some BS fantasy an old bearded man in the 1800s wrote in a book and the anti creationist ate every spoonful of lies and asked for seconds. "at last" a reason to not have to answer to anyone we came from a fish we have no soul yippy time to party! hell I don't blame you but I cant buy into your fantasy there is nothing to support it and it only keeps science from exploring other theories. Evolution has only slowed down science and even at the end of the day if you was to be right what pride do you get having Curious George as your ancestor?

    Maybe If you would have said evolution is the only thing that sorta makes sense (which it doesn't) I may have took you serious but not one shred of evidence has proven man "Evolved" from a chimp ....unless of course you have some new evidence I have yet to see. please share with the scientific community.
    more of your quote....
    "and only denied by the willfully blind
    and the ignorant"
    That statement can go both ways why not present your evidence I present mine before we draw conclusions on who is ignorant or blind. I don't think your ignorant your just misled, and your not blind your just reading the wrong books.

    the end of your quote....

    "and if you want to put up your evidence for an
    alternative i will match you point for point. what do you say?"

    I wish I had the time I will be back in San Antonio around 1pm Saturday I will allow you to present no more than three points you want me to discuss but keep in mind I do many live debates and I don't take pride in trying to be right. The evidence speaks for itself, I do take pride in exposing the lies in the text books and I'm afraid your whole belief system and way of thinking is going to prove that people like myself are needed in the classrooms.

  52. over the edge
  53. over the edge

    i did not "slip in the word "Adjustments"" they happen. once the earth was thought to be flat and the center of the universe, them is was a perfect sphere but the center. then it was a perfect sphere in a spherical orbit around the sun then a spheroid on a spherical orbit. technically all but the last one was wrong but as our knowledge grows we are getting ever closer to the absolute truth.

    the fact you have to ask " if your going to pull out the " radiometric carbon dating is only good for items up to approx 60 000 years" card then you have to answer how
    Science got the earth as 4.6 billion years old" shows your ignorance towards the subject. how old are you? and you never did back up your claim ""Science can only "speculate" the age of the earth. can you?

  54. hk
  55. hk

    I consider myself tasteful and erudite enough to negotiate the pitfalls of a comment section; and I loved this series. Of course there are better documentaries; but not so many on geology. Of course the History Channel has an habitual predilection for hyperbole; but as long as hype doesn't get in the way of presentation, I'm okay with it. My criterion is very simple: show or tell me something I didn't already know, and I'll gladly applaud you. This series succeeded admirably in that regard.

    I'm not a geologist. I hadn't encountered anything previously about the Siberian Traps; nor do I recall learning about the roughly 20,000 year Saharan cycle of wet and dry; nor did I know that the earth's crust over Death Valley is the shallowest anywhere; nor that the Rocky Mountains are so massive their very weight is making them sink into the earth.

    I didn't actually watch the series on this website; rather, I bought it from Amazon. And loved every minute of it.

Leave a comment / review: