Loading...

资料库

时代讲场文章(至2017年2月14日)

〈评《挪亚方舟惊世启示》电影及小说〉之回应

关《时代论坛》於第九二○期刊登的〈评《挪亚方舟惊世启示》电影及小说〉一文,多谢作者银狐君提出疑问,他是经过理性态度的探讨,虽略有情绪性的谩骂,仍可以互相讨论一下。我们相信影音使团对方舟的寻索是要有各方面理性的研究和争论。

火山爆发也能封存古物

  根据圣经创世记八章四节,挪亚方舟确曾停於亚拉腊山上,但圣经并没有保证方舟至今是存在或不存在。至今可有两种假设:影音使团研究历代目击的报告,假设方舟至今仍存在,故此寻找与这假设一致的证据,而有探索亚拉腊山之行。另一假设是方舟已经不存在,如银狐君所说,亚拉腊山是一座活火山,他认为:「那怕航空母舰於活火山上存留达四千年之久,恐怕早已给炸过粉身碎骨。」这命题纯粹可以凭空坐在书房中想出来,而并没有对假设作出严格和专业的探索和研究;银狐君并没有把航空母舰放在山上,然後再观察火山爆发,将之炸到粉身碎骨。纯粹幻想火山爆发,会把航空母舰炸得粉身碎骨,而银狐君并未有做过任何实验,就此论点我们没有任何研究的可观察根据。

  就我们所知的科学知识,火山活动并不是一般所想像的爆发(如荷里活电影中所见),却是因地壳下面的地函,因着压力与温度成为岩浆,岩浆在压力降低时因质量较轻而向上升,在较薄的地层裂口喷出。亚拉腊山的玄武岩,一般爆发力较弱,岩浆由於黏性高,流得也不远,喷出的轻石多落在火山口附近,因而出现圆锥形的火山口。地底的岩浆涌出地面及喷出火山灰和蒸气,岩浆和火山灰会迅速冷却,并不必然破坏一些现存的事物。只有在岩浆炽热时对直接流经的範围造成破坏,而火山灰的覆盖则不会对坚实的物体造成全面的重大破坏,更很少会出现「粉身碎骨」之类的处境。由於其迅速冷却,其覆盖的事物反而常被保存下来,成为重要的历史遗迹,如庞贝古城。在其覆盖的事物中,会有石化的现象,使其形貌被更好地保存下来;长久以来,因着各种新的变化,如通过地震,这些形貌反而会露出地面而让人知道一些远古的遗迹。若真有航空母舰在亚拉腊山上,又真的被火山灰所覆盖,它并不会粉身碎骨,反而能更好地保存其基本形貌。

  若果有冰川流动,冰川的底部会将物质吐出,按照我们发现的疑似方舟遗迹,正是在冰川帽之下的较低位置。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。根据我们的假设,若挪亚方舟真的停在亚拉腊山上,由於自古以来都有目击者的报告,方舟应该仍是可被寻见的。纵使有火山爆发,反而火山灰会保留方舟的原貌。若冰川将方舟推向冰川之下的地带,则在冰川之下可能会发现方舟遗骸。根据这假设去搜寻,正好发现这个疑似的遗骸,与我们的假设是一致的;反而银狐君的假设从未做过任何实质的证验功夫,这种坐在书房中纯粹凭想像提出的观点,并不符合理性探索的精神。基督徒若要做研究,正需要排斥这种非严格非专业的想像式推论和借此而出的大声反驳。

文物发掘与科学探索

  银狐君的文章提到「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。」银狐君基本上是采取一种反对探索的观点,与当代科学哲学所言的科学发现规则背道而驰,而且对於古文物的找寻缺乏认识。若我们真的假设摩西骸骨仍在圣经记载的摩押地,必先探寻在二千至四千年来是否有历史文件记载。有人在摩押地目击一个墓,有古石刻字说明是摩西的,然後这些墓现今已找不到;故并不是在摩押随便找些骨头,却应先从历史文件下手,才作出假设。若有这基础,我们可以假设摩西墓真实存在过,然後实际地去探索,若果在相关位置果然发现一个四千多年前的古墓,附近发现一些模糊的石刻,似是古希伯来文,然後在墓中找到一些白骨,而墓的周围发现十二条柱石,可能是十二支派的象徵。那麽我们就可以推论,这些白骨有可能是摩西的白骨,这种叫做科学探索,是完全合符当代科学发现的理则。如果先假设没有,且只在书房中高呼没有,这就违背科学发现规则了。

  甚麽是科学探索?根据着名科学哲学家费耶本(Feyeraband)的观点,我们可以作出各种假设,不论这假设如何荒谬,或与当前主流理论对反,但只要能提出理论一致的科学解释,就可尝试探索证据。可能寻得或可能寻找不到,若寻得可靠的证据,就是重大发现。凡历史上重大的科学发现就正是按这个原则发现出来的。如哥白尼,他从一些推论假设「地球围着太阳转」,这讲法在当时是违背常识和主流理论,是荒谬绝伦的,但当科学家沿着这假设追寻下去,竟成为世纪性最伟大的科学发现。

  若按银狐君的想法,他说不能够被事实推翻的讲法是不攻自破的,那麽哥白尼的理论就永远不会提出来。因为「地球围着太阳转」是不能够被事实推翻的。若果哥白尼接受银狐君的观点,假设「地球围着太阳转」是一种迷信的态度,是一个不灭的神话,那麽我们今天仍然相信太阳围着地球转了。

  科学的发现是根据一些推论来建立假设,然後去寻索这假设是否真实,当发现愈来愈与假设一致的证据时,那麽我们可以相信这假设很可能是真实的。影音使团就是按这种科学发现的规则,以实际的行动,作出各种探索,这是我们的理性态度。我们绝不会只坐在书房中随意问几个问题,提出一些没有证验的假设,去否定一些在实际探索中发现的东西。这些就是影音使团与银狐君的分别了。

三百年前的中东科技

  银狐君又提到「牧羊人Abbas在木做的建筑物中发现小麦,然後拿一些小麦去伊朗给人化验。」他质疑三百年前如何有这种发现呢?或许银狐君不知道在西方启蒙运动之前,中东是有相当的科学和科技的发展,他们跟从亚里士多德的哲学而重视经验的研究,有各种观察和经验的探索方法。恐怕银狐君以为科学只是在西方才有,而且是启蒙运动之後,那是对中东与亚洲文明的历史缺乏认识所致。

  单看那时代的中国,在启蒙运动之前,郑和下西洋的船队就远比西方为进步,中东的科技和科学在那个时代(从中世纪到十七世纪)均比西方先进。故此,在伊朗化验一些麦子是完全可能的。不过,我们所引用的资料,主要是从访问库尔德族的长者口中的实录,我们是按其说甚麽就报道甚麽,这是一种报道的方式。

  银狐君提到我们报道的库尔德人的观点,认为不能照单全收,我想银狐君并不了解甚麽叫做报道和接收的分别。我们并非照单全收库尔德人的解释,我们只是报道库尔德人的观点,然後到现场上发现他所报道的,与我们观察所见具有一致性。而且我们录影机的突然失效,经祈祷後又再能恢复运作,似乎与他们所讲的灵界解释具有一致性──我们就是报道这些现象而已。

  银狐君认为Abbas没有先进的登山工具,怎麽可以攀登达至方舟的位置呢?按我们所到过的地方,以一个熟习攀山的人来说是可以徒步达到的,与我们一起的库尔德裔摄影师也是徒手攀爬到达那位置。银狐君又质疑那木的结构物可能是其他建筑物,若他要提出这假设,请同时也提出理由,亦请到实地考察再提出来,例如古书及古泥板曾记载某君王曾在山上筑木城或木仓,或历代有人记述见过山上有木造建筑物。若无这些基础,那只是无根据的推测,作出一厢情愿及无中生有的臆想吧了!我们去探索,是根据我们的假设与及历代的目击证据,及库尔德人所知的秘密,而从实际行动中到实地探索,发现与过去这些证据和理论一致的疑似方舟结构,从而作出结论。这亦是我们与银狐君有所分别的地方。

  至於影音使团是首批中国人发现方舟,这个报道是根据我们手头有的资料。我们并未找到有其他中国人发现方舟的报告,这是一个事实的描述,事实就是事实!银狐君要妄论幕後有个动机,称之为「为中国创下记录的情意结」,这纯粹是一种随意扣帽子式的心理推想。

  假若当人类第一次踏足月球,当岩士唐宣称这一小步是人类的一大步,也是人类第一次踏足月球时,这是一个事实的宣称,不过也可以有人随意解释这是争第一的情结,这是一种自夸。

  这种对事实的论断,使人感觉到是一种扣帽子的手法。我们的主耶稣基督教导我们先学习反省,看到他人眼中的木刺,先要看看自己眼中的梁木。扣帽子的手段是不道德的,也不符合耶稣的伦理原则,愿与银狐君共勉之!

  倘若银狐君有诚意理性而专业地实地去探索他所提出的多个假设,如航空母舰可被火山爆得粉碎、伊朗无科学知识、徒步不能登山、疑似方舟不外是木建筑物等,欢迎用真实姓名与我们联络,并参与我们的考察团,以积极正面的态度,一同为方舟的研究尽上最大的努力!

(分题为编者所加)

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)