Loading...

資料庫

時代講場文章(至2017年2月14日)

〈評《挪亞方舟驚世啟示》電影及小說〉之回應

關《時代論壇》於第九二○期刊登的〈評《挪亞方舟驚世啟示》電影及小說〉一文,多謝作者銀狐君提出疑問,他是經過理性態度的探討,雖略有情緒性的謾罵,仍可以互相討論一下。我們相信影音使團對方舟的尋索是要有各方面理性的研究和爭論。

火山爆發也能封存古物

  根據聖經創世記八章四節,挪亞方舟確曾停於亞拉臘山上,但聖經並沒有保證方舟至今是存在或不存在。至今可有兩種假設:影音使團研究歷代目擊的報告,假設方舟至今仍存在,故此尋找與這假設一致的證據,而有探索亞拉臘山之行。另一假設是方舟已經不存在,如銀狐君所說,亞拉臘山是一座活火山,他認為:「那怕航空母艦於活火山上存留達四千年之久,恐怕早已給炸過粉身碎骨。」這命題純粹可以憑空坐在書房中想出來,而並沒有對假設作出嚴格和專業的探索和研究;銀狐君並沒有把航空母艦放在山上,然後再觀察火山爆發,將之炸到粉身碎骨。純粹幻想火山爆發,會把航空母艦炸得粉身碎骨,而銀狐君並未有做過任何實驗,就此論點我們沒有任何研究的可觀察根據。

  就我們所知的科學知識,火山活動並不是一般所想像的爆發(如荷里活電影中所見),卻是因地殼下面的地函,因著壓力與溫度成為岩漿,岩漿在壓力降低時因質量較輕而向上升,在較薄的地層裂口噴出。亞拉臘山的玄武岩,一般爆發力較弱,岩漿由於黏性高,流得也不遠,噴出的輕石多落在火山口附近,因而出現圓錐形的火山口。地底的岩漿湧出地面及噴出火山灰和蒸氣,岩漿和火山灰會迅速冷卻,並不必然破壞一些現存的事物。只有在岩漿熾熱時對直接流經的範圍造成破壞,而火山灰的覆蓋則不會對堅實的物體造成全面的重大破壞,更很少會出現「粉身碎骨」之類的處境。由於其迅速冷卻,其覆蓋的事物反而常被保存下來,成為重要的歷史遺蹟,如龐貝古城。在其覆蓋的事物中,會有石化的現象,使其形貌被更好地保存下來;長久以來,因著各種新的變化,如通過地震,這些形貌反而會露出地面而讓人知道一些遠古的遺蹟。若真有航空母艦在亞拉臘山上,又真的被火山灰所覆蓋,它並不會粉身碎骨,反而能更好地保存其基本形貌。

  若果有冰川流動,冰川的底部會將物質吐出,按照我們發現的疑似方舟遺蹟,正是在冰川帽之下的較低位置。方舟原本的位置可能根本在冰川之下,最低限度是已被推移到其下位置。根據我們的假設,若挪亞方舟真的停在亞拉臘山上,由於自古以來都有目擊者的報告,方舟應該仍是可被尋見的。縱使有火山爆發,反而火山灰會保留方舟的原貌。若冰川將方舟推向冰川之下的地帶,則在冰川之下可能會發現方舟遺骸。根據這假設去搜尋,正好發現這個疑似的遺骸,與我們的假設是一致的;反而銀狐君的假設從未做過任何實質的證驗功夫,這種坐在書房中純粹憑想像提出的觀點,並不符合理性探索的精神。基督徒若要做研究,正需要排斥這種非嚴格非專業的想像式推論和借此而出的大聲反駁。

文物發掘與科學探索

  銀狐君的文章提到「於摩押地找出幾根白骨,未經證實,然後高呼那是摩西遺體者,是迷信和非理性的表現。」銀狐君基本上是採取一種反對探索的觀點,與當代科學哲學所言的科學發現規則背道而馳,而且對於古文物的找尋缺乏認識。若我們真的假設摩西骸骨仍在聖經記載的摩押地,必先探尋在二千至四千年來是否有歷史文件記載。有人在摩押地目擊一個墓,有古石刻字說明是摩西的,然後這些墓現今已找不到;故並不是在摩押隨便找些骨頭,卻應先從歷史文件下手,才作出假設。若有這基礎,我們可以假設摩西墓真實存在過,然後實際地去探索,若果在相關位置果然發現一個四千多年前的古墓,附近發現一些模糊的石刻,似是古希伯來文,然後在墓中找到一些白骨,而墓的周圍發現十二條柱石,可能是十二支派的象徵。那麼我們就可以推論,這些白骨有可能是摩西的白骨,這種叫做科學探索,是完全合符當代科學發現的理則。如果先假設沒有,且只在書房中高呼沒有,這就違背科學發現規則了。

  甚麼是科學探索?根據著名科學哲學家費耶本(Feyeraband)的觀點,我們可以作出各種假設,不論這假設如何荒謬,或與當前主流理論對反,但只要能提出理論一致的科學解釋,就可嘗試探索證據。可能尋得或可能尋找不到,若尋得可靠的證據,就是重大發現。凡歷史上重大的科學發現就正是按這個原則發現出來的。如哥白尼,他從一些推論假設「地球圍著太陽轉」,這講法在當時是違背常識和主流理論,是荒謬絕倫的,但當科學家沿著這假設追尋下去,竟成為世紀性最偉大的科學發現。

  若按銀狐君的想法,他說不能夠被事實推翻的講法是不攻自破的,那麼哥白尼的理論就永遠不會提出來。因為「地球圍著太陽轉」是不能夠被事實推翻的。若果哥白尼接受銀狐君的觀點,假設「地球圍著太陽轉」是一種迷信的態度,是一個不滅的神話,那麼我們今天仍然相信太陽圍著地球轉了。

  科學的發現是根據一些推論來建立假設,然後去尋索這假設是否真實,當發現愈來愈與假設一致的證據時,那麼我們可以相信這假設很可能是真實的。影音使團就是按這種科學發現的規則,以實際的行動,作出各種探索,這是我們的理性態度。我們絕不會只坐在書房中隨意問幾個問題,提出一些沒有證驗的假設,去否定一些在實際探索中發現的東西。這些就是影音使團與銀狐君的分別了。

三百年前的中東科技

  銀狐君又提到「牧羊人Abbas在木做的建築物中發現小麥,然後拿一些小麥去伊朗給人化驗。」他質疑三百年前如何有這種發現呢?或許銀狐君不知道在西方啟蒙運動之前,中東是有相當的科學和科技的發展,他們跟從亞里士多德的哲學而重視經驗的研究,有各種觀察和經驗的探索方法。恐怕銀狐君以為科學只是在西方才有,而且是啟蒙運動之後,那是對中東與亞洲文明的歷史缺乏認識所致。

  單看那時代的中國,在啟蒙運動之前,鄭和下西洋的船隊就遠比西方為進步,中東的科技和科學在那個時代(從中世紀到十七世紀)均比西方先進。故此,在伊朗化驗一些麥子是完全可能的。不過,我們所引用的資料,主要是從訪問庫爾德族的長者口中的實錄,我們是按其說甚麼就報道甚麼,這是一種報道的方式。

  銀狐君提到我們報道的庫爾德人的觀點,認為不能照單全收,我想銀狐君並不了解甚麼叫做報道和接收的分別。我們並非照單全收庫爾德人的解釋,我們只是報道庫爾德人的觀點,然後到現場上發現他所報道的,與我們觀察所見具有一致性。而且我們錄影機的突然失效,經祈禱後又再能恢復運作,似乎與他們所講的靈界解釋具有一致性──我們就是報道這些現象而已。

  銀狐君認為Abbas沒有先進的登山工具,怎麼可以攀登達至方舟的位置呢?按我們所到過的地方,以一個熟習攀山的人來說是可以徒步達到的,與我們一起的庫爾德裔攝影師也是徒手攀爬到達那位置。銀狐君又質疑那木的結構物可能是其他建築物,若他要提出這假設,請同時也提出理由,亦請到實地考察再提出來,例如古書及古泥板曾記載某君王曾在山上築木城或木倉,或歷代有人記述見過山上有木造建築物。若無這些基礎,那只是無根據的推測,作出一廂情願及無中生有的臆想吧了!我們去探索,是根據我們的假設與及歷代的目擊證據,及庫爾德人所知的祕密,而從實際行動中到實地探索,發現與過去這些證據和理論一致的疑似方舟結構,從而作出結論。這亦是我們與銀狐君有所分別的地方。

  至於影音使團是首批中國人發現方舟,這個報道是根據我們手頭有的資料。我們並未找到有其他中國人發現方舟的報告,這是一個事實的描述,事實就是事實!銀狐君要妄論幕後有個動機,稱之為「為中國創下記錄的情意結」,這純粹是一種隨意扣帽子式的心理推想。

  假若當人類第一次踏足月球,當岩士唐宣稱這一小步是人類的一大步,也是人類第一次踏足月球時,這是一個事實的宣稱,不過也可以有人隨意解釋這是爭第一的情結,這是一種自誇。

  這種對事實的論斷,使人感覺到是一種扣帽子的手法。我們的主耶穌基督教導我們先學習反省,看到他人眼中的木刺,先要看看自己眼中的樑木。扣帽子的手段是不道德的,也不符合耶穌的倫理原則,願與銀狐君共勉之!

  倘若銀狐君有誠意理性而專業地實地去探索他所提出的多個假設,如航空母艦可被火山爆得粉碎、伊朗無科學知識、徒步不能登山、疑似方舟不外是木建築物等,歡迎用真實姓名與我們聯絡,並參與我們的考察團,以積極正面的態度,一同為方舟的研究盡上最大的努力!

(分題為編者所加)

Donationcall

舊回應190則


Thx / 2005-05-31 01:09:57

〈《挪亞方舟-驚世啟示》看追求真理的認真〉的 URL


台灣的時事論評:〈《挪亞方舟-驚世啟示》看追求真理的認真〉的 URL 應該是如下:

http://www.fhl.net/main/netopics/netopics1021624.html

虞瑋倩 / 2005-05-28 23:29:21

安吉 - 可以參考台灣這報導

http://www.fhl.net/main/netopics/

虞瑋倩 / 2005-05-28 00:40:55
銀狐 / 2005-05-26 13:06:04

回Thx


多謝你的查詢,如欲更進一步了解「方舟之真相」請觀看



http://www.truth-of-the-ark.blogspot.com/


各大高手的回應,當中有車朗生及張國棟的文章更生,值得推界,亦歡迎指教!

Thx / 2005-05-26 01:29:18

請問大家: 銀狐的《挪亞方舟失控事件簿》去了那裡

請問大家:

上月在《時代論壇》見過銀狐的《挪亞方舟失控事件簿》, 當時儲起了的link 是"http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=28601&Pid=1&Version=0&Cid=146&Charset=big5_hkscs#" , 但之後找不到了, 請問有沒有人知道這文章的新網址?

Thx

Hin / 2005-05-25 18:14:05

One response


Most people didn't know about ME and didn't really care much about what they said or claimed.


I gave the book to two Christian scientists.  One replied that it is too soon to say that is the Ark and they should bring a powerful light in order to see clearer what is inside the cave. Possibility is always there but a conclusion is still far.


This scientist didn't seem to have any interest to make a claim against ME's discovery since ME is not a representable scientific research organization.


The impact of ME's movie in North America is very slim but I think the impact is much bigger in Hong Kong. I also worry a lot about the example that they are setting among Christians regarding the apologetic method and outreach strategy. ME has set very poor standard and example in both areas.

車朗生 / 2005-05-25 09:53:19

無論如何, 影音要收回他們的言論


I think it is not so appropriate to explain the general procedure in announcing the discovery of Higgs Boson (If we really discover it in future) here, as it contains many technical terms and jargons that may need a very long explanation.


What I want to state clearly is that, ME should correct / edit / announce they cannot claim the wooden structure on the Mount Ararat is the Ark. The logic presented by ABC is not reasonable to make people accept the wooden structure found by ME is the Ark.


What if a people claim :


1. Methane in atmosphere was generated by volcanic activities and bacteria metabolism.


2. We found methane in Mars atmosphere.


3. There is no volcanic activities in Mars now.


4. There are bacteria on Mars surface, or in Mars atmosphere because of the trace of methane the satellites discovered from the equipment on them.


ESA and NASA really discovered methane in Mars atmosphere (http://mars.esa.int), but why ESA and NASA did not announce there are bacteria, or living organisms on Mars ?


Because there are other possibilities of the source of methane which the scientists may not know now !


On the wooden structure on Mount Ararat, it maybe barn, or outpost, or a temple of some kind. Without any detailed analysis of the wooden structure, as I always mentioned, no one can announce that is the Ark. It is too naive to draw conclusion like ME did, and ABC quoted.

Hin / 2005-05-24 22:53:50

Website and Face


Thanks Andi, I can open the website now. It is really nicely put, excellent work.


Regarding Silver Fox's face issue, I think indeed ME is responsible for producing such a poor quality ducomentary, one of the solution is that the teachers use it as a 反面教材 but I doubted how many will know how to use it in such a way.  I think if they read some of the articles in the website truth-of-the-ark, then they should be able to pick up some tips there.  There are a lot of good stuff there and can help the students how to think and discern falsehood from truth.


The best way of course is for ME to publish another book to admit all the mistakes, but we know that it is impossible for ME to do so.  So, the burden is upon our shoulder.


 

銀狐 / 2005-05-24 22:26:34

因為面子?

那麼,那些基督教學校包場的小朋友,又是不是應該為了成年人面子的原故,而從老師手中被灌輸一些不合科學的資料?

安吉 / 2005-05-24 21:34:04

網頁問題


基於Blogger.com的設定,Truth oh Noah方舟之真相的coding是 Unicode (UTF-8)。如果大家只看到一片空白或是一堆怪獸,請檢查一下Coding。


通常問題只會出現在IE瀏覽器上,用Firefox看通常都是沒有問題的。(Firefox是Blogger.com的指定瀏覽器) 大家可以考慮改用Firefox,順道支持Copyleft運動。


http://www.truth-of-the-ark.blogspot.com/

Hin / 2005-05-24 19:34:55

About the book


As I review some of the articles related to this topic, I found that there are a lot of good articles in there. I think it is worthwhile to consider publishing a book from this collection of articles.


I have one suggestion and one question:


1. Who has the copyright of these articles?


2. The name of the book can be "由挪亞方舟說起". There are a lot of solid lessons that we can learn together and we should benefit others too.  We don't have to criticize ME and we should take out any personal comments about anyone or even ME but just present the arguments and points.  It should be a good book to read. Also, in view of the building of the theme park, I think this book will be necessary.  It doesn't have to be exhaustive but at least include some of the best articles in the last two months.

Hin / 2005-05-24 19:29:11

To虞:They are reading and changing


Indeed, your contribution is there. Thank you.


I did know someone who endorse ME for this film but eventhough they have reservation now and regret some of the things that they have said but they won't make any public statements out of their kindness.


But, if ME continue to dig into their mistakes, I think someone will begin to speak up. I am still waiting for a few feedbacks from some Christian scientists and pastors about the film and the book. If ME didn't restraint themselves, I think we need to do more to prevent any further damage to the Christian public.


Once again, I won't judge ME's motivation but I think it is just not right to present the conclusions that they are presenting, it is better to put out the fire before it spread any further.


Keep referring the website of www.truth-of-the-ark.blogspot.com to others. I have difficulty opening it, I don't know whether others have the same difficulty.

虞瑋倩 / 2005-05-24 18:52:32

給 Hin 和 銀狐


大家也可能記得我在復活節前﹐膽大生貓毛的去廣發一封呼籲﹐裡面指出過“影音使團”網頁幾處嚴重錯誤 (Ron Wyatt﹐ Institure of Creationa Reseach)﹐最新的 www.thedaysofnoah.com  已經沒有了這些資料。


我相信互聯網的影響力有發揮作用﹐所以“影音使團”也不可以不正視。不過要求他們高調表示錯誤﹐就好像難一些。畢竟有好多牧者已經 endorse 了他們﹐某程度上面牽涉不少牧者的面子﹐他們根本就不會高調的講。


 

Hin / 2005-05-24 18:42:01

To Silver Fox: they will respond


In the last two months, there was the world tour of the film, the fund raising for the theme park, the product line of the film and that is why ME can't admit that they are wrong.


Now, the tour is almost over and the products are all out, it is about time for them to make some kind of statements, verbally or non-verbally.


If they stop the production of the DVD, that is a sign. If they take out the statements from the website of the film about the discovery of the Ark, that is another sign. 


I agreed that this is not the end of it yet. I think someone who can write should write something about the whole thing in the last two months. How should a public Christian organization be more responsible for their finance as well as their products? How should Christians present our faith to the public (such as the global best explanation and the local best explanation of 國棟, faith seeking understanding from ABC)? How should well known pastors and Christian workers give recommendations to organizations' products or projects in order to avoid being abuse of their reputation and using "blind faith"? What about evangelism? How should churches review and reflect upon the ministry of evangelism in the church?


Rev. Wu has an article on donation to para-church organization, what about an article on when and how should pastors recommend ME's movies and products? How should artists choose what to involve and what not to involve regarding ME's invitations?


What about ME's tactics in their ministry? Using famous pastors, popular artists, extreme promotions, exaggerate statements.....how should we respond to all these?


 

銀狐 / 2005-05-24 13:41:02

然後又點呢?


無論如何,都要有一個結論,我請影音使團和所有支持此片的牧者正面回應所有問題。


事情不可以不了了之!

Hin / 2005-05-24 06:17:38

To ABC and 國棟: Very good dialogue


I am sure for those who read the exchanges between you two will have benefited from them.  The content as well as some of the attitude and honesty really impressed me.


From the discussions, we can also see that ME has made some major mistakes or has neglected some major necessary studies before the declaration and the defense was made. I trusted that they have read the articles from both of you and it's time for them to reflect and learn and let's see how they are going to react.


I will be really surprise and disappointed if they didn't make any corrections in the near future.  I really hope that they won't continue to stick to something that is inappropriate and inaccurate.  It just won't do them any good. It takes courage to admit one's mistake but that is also the character of a Godly and successful person.


The world tour of the film is almost over and I am looking forward to see whether the DVD will be out and the textbook will be promoted and the content of the theme park at Ma Wan and .....pray that God will give the wisdom to ME to choose and do the right thing.


It is an honor and not a shame to admit one is wrong but it is a shame to insist someone is right when he is not.


This is one of the best discussions I came across and thank you all who contributed to it. It has been great indeed.

ABC / 2005-05-24 06:11:39

回應黃國棟

Thanks, I got your point now =)

ABC / 2005-05-24 06:08:11

回應 張國棟



“我揮不去一個想法,就是ABC是在故意刁難,因為我很難想像有人會堅持,只要有一些證據,自以為足夠,就可以向全世界聲稱已證實了某個hypothesis。我亦不肯定影音使團是否接受ABC這類思想。”

I want to clarify my meaning of “自以為足夠”. Maybe I should drop out my word including “feeling” / “自以為” as it’s confusing.

I agree with total evidence principle and it’s important to consider all the available evidences. I am not suggesting ME not using “total evidence principle”. What I mean is that there maybe some positive or negative evidences, assume they can be weighted. Also, there are some significant or insignificant evidences. So four kinds of evidences:

A. Positive and significant
B. Positive and insignificant
C. Negative and significant
D. Negative and insignificant

what I mean is like this:
for example, I have 10 evidences related to my hypothesis. When I draw conclusion, I only consider A & C, and disregard B & D. So when people keep criticize my B type evidences, I don’t care much as they are not the “key” evidences to support my conclusion. On the other hand, I didn’t find any type D evidence. So, even if I only have just a single type A evidence (e.g. saw a big wooden structure from eyes), after weighting all evidences, still infer my hypothesis is positively supported.

I really don’t know what ME think (picture 3, 4,…), but if they think like picture 2, it’s no use to criticize type B evidences or show them some type C evidences. Need to understand what are their key evidences and reasoning first.

so that’s why I ask following question in my last respond:
我也希望影音澄清「發現了方舟」的意思是什麼? 與反方的註釋是否不同? 為何選擇他們的註釋。
和用什麼(一個或多個)關鍵證據和論點和如何推論這是方舟?

but all idea just from my imagination and the way I perceive what ME said so far.
Of course, my perception can be wrong, but just a suggestion. =)

Thanks for you comment and certainly I learn a lot from it.

黃國棟 / 2005-05-24 05:48:35

Reply to ABC: Absolutely no intention to insult you


Please accept my apology if you were offended by my example. I have absolutely no intention to insult you. The statement "I feel that I have enough evidence (based on your writing style and arguments) to declare that you are insane. Is that OK with you?" is meant to be a rhetorical question, i.e. I already know the answer to the question is a NO. (When you see a statement like this, if it is without the "Is that OK with you" phase, the statement may be offensive. But with that phase, the author is already saying that he does not mean what he says in the first half.)



 



The sole purpose is used to illustrate my point that it is not logical to say that one can “declare any conclusion when he believe that he has the evidence”.



 



(If I write it in Chinese, it may not generate any confusion. But I cannot type Chinese at this computer, and don't want to wait till I get to my only computer that I can type Chinese)