Loading...

资料库

时代讲场文章(至2017年2月14日)

挪亚方舟失控事件簿
评《挪亚方舟惊世启示》电影及小说

电邮:silverfoxhk@gmail.com

影音使团制作的《挪亚方舟惊世启示》电影,已经在香港上画,宣传十足,街谈巷议。而按照其电影剧本写成的《挪亚方舟惊世启示》小说(袁文辉着,二○○五年三月第一版,青桐社文化事业。下称《挪书》。)亦经已出版并於坊间书店及基督教书室发售。笔者分析过电影以及拜读小说後,发现疑点重重,故现撰文回应,希望再能收抛砖引玉之效。

教会的第二次选择

  一如笔者早前拙作〈如果那不是方舟──拒绝「差不多」的布道话题〉提及(见《论坛》网站时代讲场专栏),影音使团已经计划把此书於国内发行,以及於全香港的中小学作推广,笔者至今仍未见计划有所改变。华人基督教对此事工需要加倍留意,切勿掉以轻心!香港教会一直以来对中国的福音事工甚有负担,一方面,我们需要竭力确保输到国内的信息是纯正的福音信仰,另一方面,任何有关神学或科学的知识均不能有误导的成分。另外,为了培养下一代有良好的思考能力,在这资讯爆炸的乱世中作盐作光,基督教的读物亦必须经过严格及专业的考证,否则只会延祸下一代。

  在此,笔者将列出《挪书》几个特别值得商榷的疑点及相关的页数让读者参考,笔者希望读者能基於以上的两个大前提作出讨论或回应。同时,笔者需要指出,虽然现在我看到《挪书》问题重重,但亦希望主内同道能抱开放的态度讨论,当然,笔者绝不排除自己有错误的可能,唯盼有识之士能不吝赐教。无论如何,本人仍视影音使团的同工为主内同道,非异端邪说。唯希望可以用和平对话的方式解决是次「危机」,以防海尼夫君的〈惊世大灾难〉(第九一七期)弄假成真!

影音方舟 神话不灭

  挪亚方舟,数千年来冰封於亚拉腊山绝岭之上,是人类历史上最神秘之谜团。(《挪书》封底介绍)

  按圣经创世记八章四节,挪亚方舟的确曾经停泊在亚拉腊山上,但圣经并无保证方舟必然存留至今。亚拉腊山是一座活火山,莫说停泊一艘木制方舟,那怕航空母舰於活火山上存留达四千年之久,恐怕早已给炸个粉身碎骨。事实上,《挪书》亦指方舟曾因地震而断开(参页六十四)。早前由英国广播公司制作的《挪亚方舟神话不再》亦指出挪亚方舟不可能长期埋藏在冰川之内,由於冰川会向下移动,而当冰川移到山的底部时,亦会把有形物质吐出,挪亚方舟亦不能例外。

  当然,对於深信挪亚方舟仍然存留在山上的探险家来说,总会有某一些神推鬼撞的力量可以令方舟保存在亚拉腊山上,但若要令人信服此说,特别是没有信仰者,则必须拿出有力的证据。而对於笃信圣经的基督徒来说,相信挪亚方舟曾经停泊於亚拉腊山之上并不必然相信它今天仍然存在山上。圣经记载摩西的尸首是埋在「摩押地、伯毗珥对面的谷中」(申卅四:6),但即使今天没有找得着摩西的尸首,基督徒仍相信摩西於历史上是真有其人。反之,於摩押地找出几根白骨,未经证实,然後高呼那是摩西遗体者,是迷信和非理性的表现。

  遗憾地,影音使团现正以一种近乎迷信的态度去搜索那一艘早应该不覆存在的挪亚方舟∶

  「假如方舟遗址真的不存在,我们仍会继续搜寻下去。历年来,圣经中许多谜团的解释,都是先有假设性的论点。除了救恩之外,许多历史的陈述均是冰山的一角,有待验证。然而,更重要的是辩证背後的福音信息、上帝要在未信者身上彰显的心意,要叫更多人藉此归信耶稣」(影音使团,〈历代挪亚方舟的见证与理据〉,《时代论坛》第九一七期)

  这一种不能够被事实推翻的讲法是不攻自破的,因为即使科学家否定了成千上万的怀疑方舟遗物、怀疑遗址亦好,基於人的幻想而幻化而成的方舟永远不能被事实推翻。基於此,影音方舟是一个不灭神话,它是一个永远只能尝试被证实而不能被否定的信念。

库尔德族人三百年前於伊朗的化验报告

  现在笔者把小说原文抄录如下,内容记载於《挪书》页六十一至页六十四

人造卫星发现方舟

  段一∶从略

  段二∶於是,使团也决定派出摄制队,希望随美国探险队出发。可是我们的制作队到了那边,却一直不见那些科学家出现,惟有改变行程,拍摄其他有关方舟的资料。由於与库尔德族土着建立了良好的关系,并获得他们的信任,我们透过Parasut掌握了亚拉腊山最大的秘密。原来他们当中有一位八十二岁高龄、德高望重的长者Kaderi,他虽然年事已高,身患疾病,而且瞎了一只眼睛,但因有感於西方世界不信方舟存在,而他又不希望这关乎人类历史的密会随着他离开世界,眼见我们对方舟真相的热切渴求,於是决定将迷底告诉我们!

曾进入方舟的人

  没料到这次访问竟为我们带来了惊世的发现。据Kaderi说,他和曾祖父曾经登山,并进入了方舟。在我们追问下,他披露了曾祖父Abbas的所见所闻。

  约三百年前,牧羊人Abbas如常上山放牧羊群,由於土地贫瘠,他愈上愈高,直至他发现自己身处一个陌生神秘地方。Abbas 走进那个地方,发现里面有一座巨大的木造建筑物,里面有间隔,还有小麦,他无暇细想,就带着一小包小麦下山,并把那里的门用石头封住了。他曾经抓起一把小麦放进口里咬过,觉得那是一种很老的味道。後来他更拿一些小麦去伊朗给人化验,发现那些小麦原来是几千年前的东西。离开後他一直念念不忘,相信自己走进的建筑物就是传说中的方舟。後来有很多考古学家找他,尝试去问出甚麽,但他没有把秘密告诉任何人。

  他很想再次寻找方舟,但可惜直到死前都无法如愿,因为在那之後,地震就发生了。一八四零年火山爆发令方舟的位置转移,Abbas的後人无论怎样努力也无法再寻获方舟。……(笔者按:库尔德族人Parasut是影音使团是次登山活动的领队)

  现在是公元二○○五年,约三百年前即是约公元一七○五年。於欧洲掀起理性思想革命的启蒙运动才於十八世纪开始,笔者非常希冀牧人Abbas在伊朗用甚麽途径去做这项小麦化验?那一家化验所的名称为何?所采用的化验方法是甚麽?科学家鑑定亚拉腊山上的怀疑方舟木块时,曾经数过年轮数目或是用碳定年法鑑定 ,未知道影音使团凭甚麽相信这位Kaderi口中所讲Abbas的话为可靠的?影音使团虽然多次表明他们并不是科研机构,无力作科学性的报告,但作为基督教的传媒机构,总需要知道报道的内容是否有确实的根据吧。另一方面,Abbas作为一个牧人,按理推论未必有足够的资金要求科学家作严谨的鑑定。而《挪书》附录三∶「挪亚方舟主要目击报告 」中亦没有提及Abbas 的记录,究竟当中是否另有文章?

  再说,若Abbas於三百年前能够徒步行近怀疑方舟遗址,亦没有今天先进的登山工具作协助的话,那所发现的木结构物体,又会否是其他人为建筑物?Abbas所发现有小麦的地方,除了有可能是方舟之外,还有其他各种各样的可能性,在长洲,张保仔洞便曾经被海盗利用作收藏贼赃的地方,天然的洞口经人为利用後便可以作很多不同的用途。Abbas似乎并无考虑过其他的可能便一口咬定那是方舟,是否一厢情愿的想法? 

在神秘与夸张之间(《挪书》页一一五至一一七)

  按《挪书》记录,袁文辉在怀疑方舟的洞口上看到一副好像有表情的面具,并表示怀疑这里有灵体的存在。亦记载了库尔德族人的迷信观念∶「这里的原居民一直传说这地方是一个灵幻河谷,异常神秘。事实上,真的有人在这里见过挪亚方舟,但这地方同时有灵体保护,在窗口好像有灵体望出来似的。

  无疑,对於带有主观性的宗教诠释,科学的确难以判断其正邪真伪,但基督徒却并不能因此便囫囵吞枣地照单全收这些诠释,彷佛毫无质疑的空间。难道对於那些多年来信奉鬼神拜祖先的长者,基督徒亦可以因着「主观的宗教诠释」等理由而对之不加以判别?笔者读到袁文辉这经验时,脑海里便浮现了一节论偶像的经文∶「他们的偶像是金的,银的、是人手所造的,有口却不能言,有眼却不能看,有耳却不能听,有鼻却不能闻,有手却不能摸,有脚却不能走,有喉咙也不能出声。造他的要和他一样;凡靠他的也要如此 。」(诗一一五:4-8)这些死物能对活生生的人构成甚麽威胁呢?能对拍摄机器做成甚麽破坏呢?当库尔德族人抛出石块把「角」击落之时,这个有可能附灵体的面具能作甚麽反应?岂不是如偶像一般有口不能讲吗!?若果这块所谓面具根本无任何杀伤力,那所谓神的保守又意义何在?究竟这一类混淆不清的信仰,是否真的适合流通於国内及中小学生之中?他们有足够的预备去分辨是非吗?

  除了以上罗列的问题外,书中不乏宣称影音使团是首批中国人第一次发现方舟的言论(页一一七、一一九),这个为中国创下记录的情意结,可跟早年影音使团声称创世电视为全中国第一个基督教电视台比较,恐怕又是争第一的心态。另外,《挪书》三番四次有意无意地声称「发现方舟」,例如「今次影音使团总干事袁文辉联同李志光牧师及摄制队深入神秘之地──亚拉腊山,寻见挪亚方舟……传说顿成事实,挪亚方舟现於人前……。」(页六),另一处则记着说∶「李志光牧师多年前念神学时,已经梦想要去寻找方舟,如今他终梦想成真,成功在亚拉腊山找到方舟存在的证据,成为二十一世纪其中一位最先发现方舟的人。」(页一三七)内文再三声称他们发现方舟,究竟是否可靠?相信看官亦心里有数。

  另外,影音使团一方面强调是否找到方舟不重要,寻找方舟的过程及寻找生命的方舟才是重要,但书内的福音信息却非常薄弱,连一般福音小册子所附的决志祷文也欠奉,亦甚少着墨於耶稣基督的生平、救赎、受死、复活等,只是间歇性地提及主耶稣的再来,没有一页完整的福音信息。反之,荷里活式地球炸个稀烂的意象则於片末重覆播放,这一种以世界末日来作福音话题的信息,没有更生人面对世界的能力,只是叫人赶搭得救的尾班车,这样的信息如何教人心从深处更生?

总结

  最後,据笔者於网上所闻,绝大部分的批评都是针着主办单位各种於宣传及信息上的问题。无疑,事前宣传的确有言过其实之嫌,但若从另一角度看,笔者仍感受到袁文辉先生那一股追查方舟的梦想动力,以及一班影音同工及杨导演的制作热诚,我拒绝其制成品但明白他们的热心及诚意。

  现在,既然现在无论是电影或是小说均疑点重重,笔者认为教会欲进一步以不同形式支持此项活动之前,务必深思其内容。

(部分分题为编者所加)

Donationcall

舊回應117則


銀狐 / 2005-04-26 13:45:34.0

小結:懸疑未消,靜待公開信的公佈


筆者的文章亦「落畫」了,很多謝大家熱烈的討論和參與,讓各界人士更了解這個事工的種種。


 


令筆者感到高興的是,愈來愈多基督教的平信徒願意作獨立的思考,反思主流教牧的言行,筆者雖然知道這些信徒並不多,但我相信,只要所持的是真理,是不愁沒有話題的。筆者靜待公開信的公佈以求更多的討論。


 


令筆者感到失望的是,那一個傳說中三百年前的化驗,至令仍未得到任何支持此片的人士/牧者或有關機構的回應,文中其他內容如果讀者不認同,當然可以一笑致之,但對一個沒有根據的言論,恐怕你想讚成之或反對之亦無從入手,這正正是「差不多」的話題,難道中國人的福音事工便是這樣子?


 


在此,請容筆者以羅素的話作為這個討論的一個小結,那原本是在文章之中,可惜不知道是不是編排的原故給省略了,願羅素的一席發人深省的話成為各位的支持!


 


==========================


I am constantly asked:What can you, with your cold rationalism, offer to the seeker after salvation that is comparable to the cosy home-like comfort of a fenced-in dogmatic creed?”


It is not the happiness of the individual convert that concerns me, it is the happiness of mankind[1]








[1] 轉引自《語理分析的思考方法》李天命,意譯如下︰


我經常被問及一個問題:你那一種冷冰冰的理性主義能夠為追求救贖的人士提供什麼? 你所能提供的,可比得上那些被教條包圍的家庭溫馨感覺嗎?”


我所關注的,不是個別人士的轉變帶來的快樂,而是全人類的幸福快樂

銀狐 / 2005-04-26 13:36:34.0

回貓姐


其實筆其不是對立法生抗拒,一如早前筆者所指,我對於對公開信的大方向是讚成的,但我恐怕到執行時,會遇到實際上的困難,如阿海所講,政府的過份介入可能令機構的做成沉重的行政壓力。


如果可行的話,不妨提供一些加拿大政府如何讓執行這法律的資料,好讓前線執行的同工更明白立法的可行性。


只是少少意見,希望大家會用得著!


 


 

Shamayim / 2005-04-26 11:00:17.0

To 虞瑋倩: Petition letter removed ??

Please check.

虞瑋倩 / 2005-04-25 23:35:46.0

銀狐


可以解釋為何對“立法”有保留呢﹖


我觀點是﹐既然婚姻大家都可以容許世俗法律規範﹐基督教也按照慈善團體登記﹐何以進一部立法會有保留﹖(立法對我來說﹐是表明基督教有一種承擔向人和神公開交代)


 

Hin / 2005-04-25 22:04:12.0

Rev. So's interview


I can only admire the professionalism and efficiency of ME.  They sure know who to ask for interview and even what do they want them to say.


I think they are already in the preparation of the theme park construction and will soon put this on a large scale promotion and fund raising campaign.  You will see and hear more "recommendation" from different "well known" pastors. Amazing!!!


What Rev. So said basically has three points:


1. The theme park can help the public to know that there was a flood in the past.


2. The theme park can point out to the public that there is a way out: the future Ark which is Jesus Christ.


3. The theme park can warn the public about the present flood: the decline in morality.


But, somehow at the end , he made a statement that: we can bring our friends and relatives to the theme park so that their hearts can be opened and to know that the Biblical record is fact and not a myth. I think somehow he is referring to the flood and the Ark.  How will the theme park achieve this?  I hope ME is not putting what they used in the Days of Noah as the evidences.  I really hope not.


Rev. So already begin to do the promotion for the theme park and ask people to invite friends to go to the theme park after it is built.  Sounds very familiar. Well, there is nothing new under the sun!


Once the theme park is out, people's focus will shift to it and will soon forget about what ME did in the Days of Noah. As more materials and information are displayed in the theme park regarding the flood, it will be just more confusion and somehow the discovery of ME will be mixed with them and the public is very difficutl to discern which part is which. Skillful, well, what's new?

銀狐 / 2005-04-25 19:11:23.0

回海尼夫:驚世大災難前奏:蘇穎智牧師訪問 - 從主題公園看上帝的救恩


http://www.thedaysofnoah.com


蘇穎智牧師訪問 - 從主題公園看上帝


===================


另外,回應你對公開信的建議,筆者想一想,也許立法的確有一些值得商榷的餘地,且看貓姐如何回應。


但對於把數據交代清楚的原則,我還是很認同的。

銀狐 / 2005-04-25 18:51:07.0

回應pong:請你也向影音反映你的寶貴意見!


筆者對自然科學所知不多,記憶中,只是知道德國學者孔恩亦有指出科學並無全然客觀,並帶有主觀性,余創豪君亦曾撰文討論有此這一個課題。


筆者很鼓勵你把你的意見向影音反映:


若數木的年輪是不行的(若以下是對的)--->""如果那物體是挪亞方舟,它應有4400年歷史,所以木會變成化石.所以發現木材形狀的石塊應是令人鼓舞的証據.可是因為那材料沒有年輪,該探險隊就斷言它不是木塊.但這判斷是真確的嗎?洪水之前的世界情況與現在大不相同.聖經說:“野地還沒有草木,田間的菜蔬還沒有長起來,因為耶和華上帝還沒有降雨在地上,也沒有人耕地.但有霧氣從地上騰,滋潤遍地.”(創世記第2章第5, 6節.)樹木的年輪乃由於季節的變化,在洪水之前的環境,並無季節的變化,所以樹木就沒有年輪.""


發現方舟,證明聖經是真確的。今天,有許多考古證據被發掘出來,從這個角度看,更加證明了聖經的真實性,亦增加了我們講福音和傳福音的說服力。我支持這項事工,並呼籲海內外基督徒都要在禱告或經濟上支持這項事工,亦可以透過「影音使團」的報導,知道更多這方面的消息,關心事工發展。」
謝友德牧師
雪梨中央浸信會主任牧師 (雪梨)


<=你大可以問一問這一位牧師,是如何「證明聖經」是真的。按你的推論,那影音應該發現巨大的「石結構」不是「木結構」了!


至於design inference的理論,請容筆者仍舊以落後的實証主義角度發問問題:「如何避免這個理論被濫用呢,如何得知推論當中沒有錯的可能性呢?按實證主義而言,一個推論是需要有可能被事實推翻但卻並無被推翻。但design inference論看來並不從此進路。」


筆者邏輯有限,或者容我問得通俗一點:「如何避免有鬍鬚(表面證據男人,仲有錢tim)便是老豆的推論?」


 

Hin / 2005-04-25 18:40:34.0

A few suggestions to Tom


1. I believe that you might have read the "open letter" already, I encourage you to read the article "正視機構的誠信" and the related responses, that can help you understand more about the big picture of ME.


2. If you are going to show the movie in the church in the future, I recommend you to make a statement before the showing in order to avoid the misunderstanding. If this is about the story of the search for the Ark, if it is about the story of the Ark, if it is about the message from the Noah's day, no problem at all but don't let people think that is the discovery of the Ark.


3. You can also use this as a good teaching material for apologetics. For me, I will use it as a 反面教材.  As I shared the wonderful message of the Cross with my friends, I came across quite a number who are being stumbled and blocked by the rediculous claims from Christians and even Christian pastors. One simply asked me "Do they know what they are saying after all?", one said "Do they think they can say anything as long as they are using Cantonese?" Interesting statement!

Hin / 2005-04-25 18:22:09.0

About Discovery


As we know, many scientific methods of dating including C14 have their limitations. Also, if what Pong said is true, why should we force ourselves to do something that is not plausible nor permissible.


In the past archeaology, we have already discovered many things that support the historical reliability of the Bible. If there are more, that is great; but if the evidence is not ready, don't push it.


The "wooden structure" and "the sound from the cave" are way too weak to build a case for the Noah's Ark. We can definitely say that we believe in the Ark but please don't say that "that" is the Ark.

Hin / 2005-04-25 17:53:50.0

To Tom: How much evidence?


Honestly speaking, I don't need any evidence to believe in the Ark but I think we all need more evidence when we present to the public that "that" is the Ark.


If you said that a "smile" is a good starting point for "she likes me", indeed it is but that is also a good starting point to many many more people besides me.  It is not very strong at all. I can accept the conclusion that at least she didn't dislike me and I can try to find out whether she likes me or not. That is how far I can go and I don't think I can go any further than that.


What did ME discover? A 4m exposure of a piece of wood outside a cave, a stone is being thrown inside the cave and hear a sound. Of course, there is the story from the guide. Of course, there are other "discoveries" about the Ark in the past decades.


First of all, can we link the story and the "discoveries" with the ME search, I doubted.  At least, we need some positive and plausible links to these two.


Then, what we have left are those two.  Even based on the four points that you have given, I still don't think that is very strong at all. I think there are people who can build the same argument as yours to show that it is not a very strong conclusion.


If the evidences are so strong, I don't think they need to keep quiet on this since the movie is out and they don't need to find people like Dr. Wu to "try" to back them up by those few minutes' estimation and speculation.


I also wonder why not those pastors who first recommended the movie before it's showing didn't say anymore after the movie is shown. I can't find that on the ME's website at all.  If ME wants the support, get it from these pastors!


The only one that I knew is still supporting is Leung In Sing. There is no surprise since his previous claim of finding the anchors of the Ark is already a joke.  You can look into this more.


As a Christian, I am as eager as many others to discover the Ark, how much it will be easier for us to show the accuracy and reliability of the Bible, how much effective our evangelism will be.  On the other hand, if it is not, it will only discredit our credibility for making false claims and will also set up a very bad example for Christians as regarding how to defend our faith.


One more important thing is that we need to trace back to ME's history that they have a habit of making false claims and doubtful actions:


1. I have asked two more questions about the movie but so far, no one respond to it.  They are regarding the best selling and the first Chinese made documentary.


2. Their TV station being the first Christian broadcasting program.


3. Their need for financial support. This is the most worried area for many. Every project is in deficit but then they kept suspending the salaries of their staff and kept expanding their ministry. The income and expense didn't match, that is a very big problem.


So, these are just a few points about ME, there are a lot more. Normally, for an ordinary Christian, it is hard to discern the problem, but, I think for someone like you, you should be able to discern it easily.  Keep an eye on them from now on, then you will know what I meant.


Most Christian has a good heart for any ministry and projects that can help people to know God and to believe in Christ.  I think that is good but we need to be careful not to jump into the water without checking the depth first.


If you are from Canada, you should have heard the story about PTL and Jim Bakker. I am not saying that ME is like PTL, they are far smaller compare to PTL, but I want to point out that it is possible that we are creating a monster is we are not careful. Read the book by Jim Bakker "I am Wrong", there are a lot of things we can learn regarding Christian organizations.


Good to have your input in this. Thank you and God bless.

pong / 2005-04-25 15:23:03.0

科學


科學是主觀是一些non-chrsitians 的大學professors說的。 其實我是想指出要再去證明所找到的木的年齡是不太可能。而現今的科學的驗證方法是同TOM的 Design Inference 的方法類似,其實很多科學家在沒有一百分之一百的證明時,從正面證據+推理就證明了自己的理論, 這就足以說服人這理論是對。


 

佚名Anonymous / 2005-04-25 15:07:10.0

科學問題

基督徒面對科學和信仰的關係時,時不時就會提出科學好主觀。但係,唔該睇清楚而家的話題係乜。而家只係講緊證據與聲稱不符合,即好似廉署捉人收入與支出不符合,沒有人挑戰那些證據係唔係百分百證明。

pong / 2005-04-25 14:22:04.0

to


其實你若有上大學做科學研究,就會發現科學是主觀而不是客觀。當一個理論出現了,若事情是按理論而行(實驗),那這就是對。但好可惜結果不是全對。就如半個世紀之前,人們認為Newton's laws是全對, 但到了愛因斯坦就將某些細節推翻, 如萬有引力的問題 ( 突然消失的引力)。


你想證明那木是否挪亞時代?我認為會是不行, 因為 在洪水之前的世界不同現在的世界, 很多東西都不同了。


目前"所謂"證明木的年齡的方法有2 個(以我所知)--年輪和碳十四/同位素。


若數木的年輪是不行的(若以下是對的)--->""如果那物體是挪亞方舟,它應有4400年歷史,所以木會變成化石.所以發現木材形狀的石塊應是令人鼓舞的証據.可是因為那材料沒有年輪,該探險隊就斷言它不是木塊.但這判斷是真確的嗎?洪水之前的世界情況與現在大不相同.聖經說:“野地還沒有草木,田間的菜蔬還沒有長起來,因為耶和華上帝還沒有降雨在地上,也沒有人耕地.但有霧氣從地上騰,滋潤遍地.”(創世記第2章第5, 6節.)樹木的年輪乃由於季節的變化,在洪水之前的環境,並無季節的變化,所以樹木就沒有年輪.""


第2個方法14C 也是不行, 14C的使用其實有一個十分大的假設-----decay of 14Carbon is a constant rate。到現在很多支持bible的scientist 都不認同14c的準確, 因為沒有人知道之前(N年前)是否對(decay of 14Carbon is a constant rate)。而這涉及第2 個問題----創世是50億年(14c)或是6000-10000年(bible),現在科學家從magnetic years來證明地球是一萬年,及舉出其他證明推翻 50億年的說法。有關資料你們可去找找看。當然仍然有一部分的科學家支持50億年的說法。


所以科學是不能從單一的證據去證明一件事, 但現在世界各地有關洪水的傳說 + 在很多高山找到貝殼化石==>有洪水的可能性會是大的, 反而方舟仍雖多一些新的證明方法才行(現代的科學未必能做到)。


後話:科學是幾主觀,好多理論都未經實驗證明,大家都認為是對的。又或是很多實驗證明一個理論是對的,家都認為是對的,其實又未必全對的。

pong / 2005-04-25 14:22:04.0

To TOM and silver fox


其實你若有上大學做科學研究,就會發現科學是主觀而不是客觀。當一個理論出現了,若事情是按理論而行(實驗),那這就是對。但好可惜結果不是全對。就如半個世紀之前,人們認為Newton's laws是全對, 但到了愛因斯坦就將某些細節推翻, 如萬有引力的問題 ( 突然消失的引力)。


你想證明那木是否挪亞時代?我認為會是不行, 因為 在洪水之前的世界不同現在的世界, 很多東西都不同了。


目前"所謂"證明木的年齡的方法有2 個(以我所知)--年輪和碳十四/同位素。


若數木的年輪是不行的(若以下是對的)--->""如果那物體是挪亞方舟,它應有4400年歷史,所以木會變成化石.所以發現木材形狀的石塊應是令人鼓舞的証據.可是因為那材料沒有年輪,該探險隊就斷言它不是木塊.但這判斷是真確的嗎?洪水之前的世界情況與現在大不相同.聖經說:“野地還沒有草木,田間的菜蔬還沒有長起來,因為耶和華上帝還沒有降雨在地上,也沒有人耕地.但有霧氣從地上騰,滋潤遍地.”(創世記第2章第5, 6節.)樹木的年輪乃由於季節的變化,在洪水之前的環境,並無季節的變化,所以樹木就沒有年輪.""


第2個方法14C 也是不行, 14C的使用其實有一個十分大的假設-----decay of 14Carbon is a constant rate。到現在很多支持bible的scientist 都不認同14c的準確, 因為沒有人知道之前(N年前)是否對(decay of 14Carbon is a constant rate)。而這涉及第2 個問題----創世是50億年(14c)或是6000-10000年(bible),現在科學家從magnetic years來證明地球是一萬年,及舉出其他證明推翻 50億年的說法。有關資料你們可去找找看。當然仍然有一部分的科學家支持50億年的說法。


所以科學是不能從單一的證據去證明一件事, 但現在世界各地有關洪水的傳說 + 在很多高山找到貝殼化石==>有洪水的可能性會是大的, 反而方舟仍雖多一些新的證明方法才行(現代的科學未必能做到)。


後話:科學是幾主觀,好多理論都未經實驗證明,大家都認為是對的。又或是很多實驗證明一個理論是對的,家都認為是對的,其實又未必全對的。

銀狐 / 2005-04-25 13:44:30.0

To: Tom 木結構及其他問題1


1)其實我看片時完全看不到什麼木結構,影片拍得很不清楚


2)你所指的A,我相信要少都要有證據指出那是三千年的木才可以考慮。


3)我並無細細研究過


「 Design Inference 方法是要找一些叫做 complex specified information 」


但我印象中,confirm 信仰和證明(prove)信仰是兩個很不同的取向,然而,這個方法是不是合用於現在影音的例子呢?


我已經指出了,最少對當地人來說,那個山不是想像中的難行,影音自己都話三百年前那個牧人Abbas自己行了去,咁其實有幾難呢?部份香港人平日不做運動,走幾步路、追下巴士便叫救命,這樣比很困難。


最後,你提到少女「回眸一笑」是一個好的開始也許很浪漫,但現在我看到的,卻是男方已經一廂情願地公告天下:「驚世啟示!我發現了我老婆」,然後飛擒大咬.....


無搞清楚可不可以不要那麼心急呢?


好事便是給這些行事衝動之流變成一泡夢想。


 


 

海尼夫 / 2005-04-25 12:21:38.0

有關公開信的立法建議


近日忙於副業,連正職都唔得閒做,因此沒有在這議題上寫過甚麼。今天才看公開信,對立法的一點有以下意見。


1. 假如立法,都不應針對基督教機構,應該對非牟利團體作一般性的規管。從前(如今亦然)有不少以非牟利團體登記的機構借救災扶貧的名義騙財,這也應要收緊法例作規管。


2. 法例過嚴,會令小機構的行政費用增加,因此要合乎中道。我不懂會計,要尋求專業意見。或許可以成立行內的監察組織,發揮如胡牧師所提的功能,讓信徒能夠有充份資料評估機構的誠信。我一向擔心過渡立法,讓政府的手伸得太入,民間的自由會縮減。

Tom / 2005-04-25 08:20:24.0

回應 Hin (6): Is it likely or not likely that the discovered structure was the Noah Ark?

Another issue which I am more interested in is this: "Is it likely or not likely that the discovered structure was the Noah Ark?"

Hin, I totally agree with you, accuracy is important. On the other hand, is "avoiding error" more important than "seeking the truth"? [我信故我思, 關啟文].

Right now, their evidences are "positive", even not very formally collected by experts. Hopefully, ME can send another team soon and get more accurate evidences. And their current finding provides a good starting point to do further research there.

My respond to Hin about "the girl smiles to you doesn’t mean she like you". Yes, "smiles" is not a strong evidence to support "she like you". But at least, it is a positive evidence and it is at least less likely "she don’t like you". And that could be a good starting point, right? (Are their discovered evidences ordinary as "a smile" only?)

Finally, I try to revise my previous 4 points to infer the Ark below. Nice to have dicussion with you and 銀狐. =)

A. 發現巨形木結構在亞拉臘山的高峰

B. 天然或碰巧地 (by nature or random chance) 形成巨形木結構是很難的
(所以好有可能是人造的。如果是人造的﹐是誰造的呢﹖)

C. 未曾聽聞在全球其他地方的高峰上發現有這種巨形木結構 (如果此點成立﹐這在高峰上的巨形木結構是十分獨特的﹐不是古人常做的古代建築 , e.g. 金字塔等)

D. 除聖經提到的方舟 與 亞拉臘山巨形木結構有關之外, 未曾聽聞有其他與 高峰上巨形木結構相關的歷史記載。

A 是影音使團claim的﹐我們信可以是基於有一些正面證據﹐ 我們不信可以是因為覺得那些正面證據 "未夠"說服力。但什麼才是"夠"呢﹖
我想下次派中國的考古或其他專家﹐ 如果他們也找到更多的正面證據, 就都應 該好夠了 。
B 指出巨形木結構較有可能是人造 (complex specified)
C 指出巨形木結構是十分獨特, 其他高峰絕無僅有的 (complex)
D 是看看有沒有些獨立的根據去解釋 A (specified)

我是想指出﹐ 在未有更多常用和容易叫人相信的驗證之前﹐ 只要A成立﹐因 B是合常理的, 而 C﹐D 未被推翻時﹐ 也可以理性地相信那東西是聖經記載的方舟。


p.s.: 這 Design Inference 方法是要找一些叫做 complex specified information
(Dembski, W.A. (2001) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory.)

Tom / 2005-04-25 08:18:33.0

回應Hin and 銀狐 (5)

Thanks for Hin and 銀狐, after discussing more with you, my mine is more sharpen about the issue.

I think one important issue 銀狐 concern is that if ME claims more than their evidences, it may lead to serious bad consequences. However, since I didn’t see the whole film nor the fiction yet and not much experience about their promotions, so I have no comment about it.

Hin / 2005-04-24 18:08:23.0

To Tom: Two points for you to think about


I felt that you start with a presupposition that ME is trustworthy.  When I first heard about ME's discovery of the Ark, I wish it is true too, that is my presupposition too but then as days go by, my presupposition has changed not that I want to but I am forced to do so. The evidences are just too weak.  I still believe in the Ark, but I can't accept the discovery of ME to be the Ark at least at this time.  If you want us to use faith to accept it, fine, but not with science or even logic is difficult.


1. You said that you believe in the testimonies of the two Christians in HK. I think they are really honest and not making up any lies for what they said. Being honest is not the same as being accurate.  When I saw a girl and she looked at me in a special way, I concluded that she likes me and then I tell all my friends that she likes me. Am I telling a lie? No, but am I accurate, I doubted.


2. You still said that you believe they have discoverd a big wooden box. I think you believe because they believe so too. As I asked you earlier? How is "big"?  As I asked you to look at a link in ME's website, the exposed part is 4m, is that big? If you said the cave is big like a swimming pool, how do you know the whole cave is wood?  Indeed they throw a rock into it and hear the sound and judge by the sound, the inside is big, but how do you know that it is wood indeed?  How many rocks did they throw into the cave? 10, 20? You basically believe in what they believe.


Since you are such a logical person, don't you think there is some significant problems with such a conclusion, read my other comment regarding Dr. Wu's judgement of the sound, do you think that is a very scientific way of coming to a conclusion. If ME really want to proof something, find the right expert to do so, don't just find anyone that is handy or on their side.


As you said, it really doesn't matter how much evidences we have in order to believe in something.  I agreed with that, when Jesus was on the earth, performing miracles and people still didn't believe.  I totally agreed that no matter what ME discover or prove in the future won't convince those who refuse to believe. But, when you try to present something to the public and made a point, please present something that is at least acceptable and reasonable.  We can't just use faith or faithless, trust or no trust to accept a "discovery". ME can say that they believe in the Ark but don't say that they have discover the Ark.  If we accept ME 's discovery in this way, there will be lots of similar discoveries in the future and what is the use for the intelligence that God has given to us.


I BELIEVE IN THE ARK!


 

Hin / 2005-04-24 17:46:59.0

Two responses


1. About Dr. Wu's statement, I agreed with him that there indeed was an Ark, no doubt about that but the way he supported ME's discovery is very very lack of scientific support. Mainly he made the judgement by paying special attention to the sound of the rock when it fell into the cave.


There could be many things inside the cave besides wood and rock. Did he compare the colliding sounds between a piece of rock and different materials before he made that judgement. As I remember,he is only the "scientist" in computer engineering, I didn't know that he is a sound expert too!


I am also amazed that ME is willing and has the courage to put this on their website and made it public, I think they really underestimate the public's intelligence or overestimate the public's confidence in them.


They are still very desperate to show that they are correct in making the claim but I think this Dr. Wu's help doesn't work at all. If that can be a proof, I feel sorry for science and intelligence.


2. Regarding 白無忌, I think we all believe in God's judgement but we also believe in Christian's responsibility and a citizen's responsibility. Leave ME alone will only worsen the case.  On the other hand, if ME is clean, then show it, isn't that much simplier.  But, up to now, ME refused to show the financial statement of different projects, including the Days of Noah and 天使心 and 天作之盒. If they are so good in doing such powerful promotion for their projects, if they are so detail in their website and following up all kinds of orders and donations, don't tell me that they can't put a simple statement on their website (less than a page) for the projects unless they don't have one at all or they did have one but can't show it at all.


Don't say it lightly when you said that others 當神無到, we dare not.


The Bible said that God established the government and gave them authority and they are set up for a purpose.  The Bible also said that the government authority is not for those who do good to fear but for those who do evil.  If one didn't do evil, there is absolutely no fear at all for any kind of examination or reporting request.


We have witnessed many crimes and sins committed by Christians and Christians leaders inside and outside of the church, why would those things happened? Is God judging all these? I felt that sin has it's consequences and penalty, when someone sinned, the judgement has taken place already. But, in a community and in a society, we also need to deal with it according to a citizen's right and with the authority God gave to the government, there is nothing wrong with it.