發現方舟的聲稱，進一步被證實為假

陳崇基 / 2011年11月16日

於十一月三日，Dr. Andrew Snelling公佈了木樣本碳14詳盡報告，亦附加中文翻譯，文章名為「最近在亞拉臘山發現的木樣本是否來自方舟？」（見http://www.answersingenesis.org/zh/articles/aid/v6/n1/mt-ararat-wood），讀者可能感到文章只是科學家的高談寬論而置之不理。故筆者希望指出其重點，使人了解它的重要。

碳14測定結果

　　報告中最重要的，必然是「表1 - 碳十四測定結果」，以下按樣本列出資料：

樣本	實驗室	測定結果	樣本日曆年齡
A	1	1955年後	現代
A	2	1950年後	現代
B	1	距今120 +/- 25年	約公元後18-19世紀
B	2	距今135 +/- 30年	約公元後18-19世紀
C	1	距今610 +/- 25年	約公元後14世紀
D	3	距今4269-4800年	公元前4941 +/- 4647年

樣本A, B, C結果詮釋

　　以上圖表一目了然，共有四個樣本（A, B, C, D），分別由三間實驗室作化驗。樣本A、B和C的年齡都是公元後年份，足以引證取樣的木結構不屬古代，但影音從沒有公佈這些結果。

樣本D結果詮釋（Snelling）

　　影音公佈樣本D，其單靠此宣稱發現方舟。唯獨樣本D在另一間實驗室三進行，又只作了一個化驗，無法作比對，所以，Snelling質疑這結果的可靠。結果表示，木材年齡是「距今4269-4800年」，日曆年齡為公元前4941 +/- 4647年，故年齡介乎於2,243-11,538年之間。留意「不確定程度」（range of uncertainty）上落甚大：+/- 4647年，其他上落程度只有 +/- 25-30年。

　　樣本D也不能簡單當為4,000-5,000的歷史，因為碳十四年份要經校準才能換計出日曆年份。尤其Snelling是地球年輕論說，碳14年份要考慮大洪水等因素，才能定準日曆年份。Snelling認為如果這木樣本是屬於大洪水前建方舟的木，碳-14年紀應介乎20,000-50,000年。但如今樣本D只有4,000多年，校準之後就不可能是主前2,800年，而是比這年輕得多。

　　我個人不贊同基要派創造論，但既然影音的框架是「基要派創造論」，樣本D的碳十四年紀也要按同一個「遊戲規則」在此框架下被校準，正如Snelling所作的。這樣，可以結論，連方舟宣稱的唯一數據也沒有了。

樣本D結果詮釋（Master）

　　讀者可能問，answeringenesis擁護基要派創造論，其分析怎能被主流科學界所認同？筆者亦將碳十四列表電郵給在惠頓學院的考古學家Dr. Daniel Master，他是哈佛大學考古學博士，也不是基要派創造論者。他未收到筆者電郵前，對這方舟鬧劇全不知情¹，故其看法不但專業，也中立。

　　他很快指出樣本D有問題，回覆電郵說（中文翻譯）：

　　※「第四個樣本的不確定程度，不可能是正確的。我不能想像一個有效的碳十四樣本，可有這樣大的不確定程度……按現有資料，此數據要作廢。」

　　※「就你所提供的資料，對任何人來說，實驗室三之結果應作廢。」

　　連同筆者前文〈發現方舟的宣稱，聖經考古的回應〉從考古、歷史角度來批評方舟的宣稱，加上Snelling和Master的評審，足以推翻方舟的宣稱。

偽科學，偽考古

　　當Snelling從影音得到碳十四化驗結果之副本，看了後便肯定他們並無發現方舟，又要求他們作更多測定，建議推遲新聞發佈會的日子，但影音仍不顧一切製作「紀錄片」作籌款和傳福音之用。

　　這表示影音隱瞞不利證據，打著考古旗號，實際上對真理置之不理，這種偽科學不但誤導大眾，更絆倒他人有損主名，教牧信徒怎可若無其事，視若無睹？

　　此文章是筆者blog上文章的節錄，原文見http://marksir.blogspot.com/2011/11/14_10.html

（http://www.christiantimes.org.hk，時代論壇時代講場，2011.11.16）

Master當然不會否定方舟的歷史性，專業考古學家根本不會看尋找方舟是甚麼重要議題。

舊回應10則

Hin / 2011-11-23 05:07:49

MEDIA is just amazing!

In their second defense against Dr. Snelling and at the end of it, they stated:

"NAMI聽取專家的意見，會由學歷受認可的科學家撰寫報告，通過同輩評審，在學術期刊發表文章。不像Dr. Andrew Snelling，只憑一張碳14的報告簡表，便大做文章，完全不是有誠信、負責任的科學家所為。"

Are they talking about themselves? They didn't 聽取專家的意見，they didn't 由學歷受認可的科學家撰寫報告，通過同輩評審，在學術期刊發表文章。But, they 只憑一張碳14的報告簡表，便大做文章，完全不是有誠信、負責任的科學家所為 (well, they are not scientists, what can we expect from them but they are making scientific claims!)

This is what I call "telling lies with eyes open"!

If you read their defense, you will notice once again that they are taking things out of the context and falsely accused Dr. Snelling and jumped to many conclusions on their own speculation (which is something that they always accuse others doing).

For most readers, unless they have read Dr. Snelling's article, if not, it is very easy to stand on MEDIA's side and think that they are right. This is what I called "deceiving the small kids"!

They are simply amazing!

忠信 / 2011-11-18 15:07:31

影音不敢罵胡牧

胡志偉牧師一系列文章的確好嘢, 特別是第三篇

(http://christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=69588&Pid=6&Version=0&Cid=150&Charset=big5_hkscs)

指出方舟問題反映了華人教會更深層次的問題. 大家有沒有留意影音的反駁, 指名道姓罵陳崇基, 張國棟及外國專家, 卻不敢罵較多人熟悉的胡牧.

Hin / 2011-11-17 12:40:55

Can't stop, have to say more...

I wanted to stop but when I came to this paragraph in MEDIA's defense, I couldn't, take a look:

不要受到不負責任的攻擊蒙騙

教牧及學者的一言一行對年青一代將有深遠的影響。
盼望各弟兄姊妹同心祈禱，祈求信徒以至牧師、神學院
老師、院長、教授皆不要受到不負責任的攻擊蒙騙，能
回歸聖經的教導及原則。
請注意！

下期將會回應關於Dr. Andrew Snelling不準不實的碳14報告。

They advised the readers not to be deceived by the irresponsible accusations but what about their irresponsible claim of finding the ARK all these years (not one year or two but over 7 years).

They advised the readers to return to the teachings and principles in the Bible, how amazing? Do they remember that the Bible said, let yes be yes and let no be no, if we say more, then it is from the evil one. You draw the conclusion, did MEDIA say more than they should?

Then, they laid down the ground to attack Dr. Andrew Snelling, see how accurate their accusation will be this time!

Hin / 2011-11-17 11:49:52

The response from MEDIA, simply amazing and unbelievable....

MEDIA is really experienced in defending themselves but as I read the response, I like to respond a bit first and leave to Daniel Cheung to respond more later:

They defended themselves against the challenges from Rev. Chan, in their first point, they admitted that wood has been carried up the mountain and even to the peak of the mountain but the best is just a 7 feet wooden cross in 1850 and they also quoted from professor Belli that there is no religious structure nor churches in that region were build out of wood.

I am amazing the way MEDIA's professional writer misled the reader.

First of all, they only quoted the 7 feet wooden cross in 1850 but what about 在一八二九年，Parrot帶著馬匹、牛，背著糧食和木柴上山，在山峰樹立了兩個大形木十架，較大的樹立在一萬六千尺高的山上，較小的立在山頂；

MEDIA is using the same method that they used to made the claim, choosing the sample that meets their need and hiding the others that didn't.

They only quoted about the 7 feet wooden cross but didn't mention about Parrot's two huge wooden cross and the bigger one is at an elevation of 16,000 feet which is higher than 4000 meters! This is done in 1829, almost 200 years ago!

What about the two monasteries? Even though they are not at the 4000 meters elevation, Rev. Chan is trying to point out the fact that wood can be carried up the mountain, not only to 2500 meters but also higher than 4000 meters. Both monasteries were built between 9th and 11th centuries.

If people can do that between 9th and 11th century, why can't modern people do better and get to a higher elevation which has been proven by Parrot. For Parrot, it is still 200 years ago, why can't today's people do better?

They further to challenge Rev. Chan that he didn't "examine" these sites and then jump to the conclusion that he has a "care less" attitude. (Again, MEDIA is good in jumping to conclusion and they will accuse others jumping to conclusion about them but at the same time they are so good in doing that and I don't think others are jumping to conclusion about them at all). What they did is very irresponsible.

Then, they quoted Dr. Klenck about the pyramid, temples and shepherds' shelters, when did Rev. Chan quoted these? It is amazing!

In the next page, they tried to defend the statement that they had in their promotional materials about National Geographic, if we have followed this, then, it is not hard to see how they misled the public and then put the blame on National Geographic, just unbelievable.

And then they go on trying to earn the support from the public by expressing their disappointment that Christians attacking them, they had a title: 不要輕率傳播未經證實的言論. BUT, why do they spread the claim of discovering the ARK before it is being proven!!!! Isn't this interesting! That is MEDIA!

For those who didn't read carefully will think that they are right but for those who are willing to compare notes, then, it is not hard to see that they are wrong.

MEDIA knew that the general public won't be able to nor interested in reading so much materials (especially in such technical terms), therefore, they are able to "deceive" or "misled" a lot of people. Bad strategy! Unethical strategy!

I really getting pretty tired and frustrated in reading their defense. Just sad! I better stop here and let someone else to continue.

They will attack Dr. Andrew Snelling next, just wait for it! It will be another amazing defense for sure!

張國棟 / 2011-11-17 02:56:35

更多資料

梁斐生博士解釋：Dr. Andrew Snelling 方舟炭14 化驗報告（這 Youtube 片分成四部份的）

Dr. Amy Beam 說她會出書揭發土耳其人愚弄的計謀。即使今天我們看不到那短片，很快我們就可以多知道故事的另一面。

另外，各位不妨看看影音使團的反駁：http://www.noahsarkmovies.com/arkmovie/big5/pdf/extra20111107.pdf

反駁文問題多多。日後有機會我會為文分析。暫時，各位可以看看 howtindog 如何批評這個反駁。

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXxdtWlaLv8&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6UHO-2_4QY&feature=watch_response

小傳道 / 2011-11-16 18:47:51

謝謝張弟兄和HIN弟兄的資料

如題

Hin / 2011-11-16 18:01:39

To 小傳道:Here is the Press Release content from Joel Klenck and the youtube video clip

I just went on to the youtube video clip of Amy Beam and I have no problem viewing it at all! Interesting!

Here is the press release from Joel Klenck:

"New Support for Alleged Noah’s Ark Discovery
Posted November 11th, 2011 by paleorc

Archaeologist states there is scientific merit to recent discovery of site associated with the legendary ark of Noah.

Miami, FL, United States., November 10, 2011 - (PressReleasePoint) - In 2010, the Hong Kong organization Noah’s Ark Ministries International or NAMI announced they had discovered the legendary vessel on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey and were subsequently accused of perpetrating a hoax. Now, a professional archaeologist states there is significant merit to their discovery.

Harvard University educated archaeologist and director of the Paleontological Research Corporation, Joel Klenck, surveyed the site, analyzed the archaeological remains and completed a comparative study. “The site is remarkable”, states Klenck, “and comprises a large all-wood structure with an archaeological assemblage that appears to be mostly from the Late Epipaleolithic Period.” These assemblages at other sites in the Near East have calibrated radiocarbon dates between 13,100 and 9,600 B.C. Located at elevations above 4,200 meters on Mount Ararat and covered by layers of ice and stones, he states: “The site is wonderfully preserved, exhibits a wide array of plant materials including structures made of cypress and one room with a floor covered by chickpea seeds.” Klenck additionally notes, “I was most impressed by the artifactual assemblage, particularly the basalt bowls, stone cores and debitage.”

It also appears that the site was visited in later periods. Two small ceramic bowls from the Chalcolithic (5,800-3,000 B.C.) and Bronze Age (3,000-1,200 B.C.) periods were placed in one of the rooms of the structure. He adds, “These artifacts most likely represent brief later visits to the site since these bowls differ from the Epipaleolithic remains that comprise nearly all of the assemblage.”

Klenck reports, “The surface scatter of the wood above the large structure is 121.1 meters in length and 23.8 meters in width. The construction is at least 5.2 meters deep and several measurements of the exterior walls exhibit angles moving inward toward the base of the edifice. Also, there are stair-like features that descend through the middle of the multi-storied structure and mortise-and-tenon construction.” He remarks, “That this large wood structure is located on Mount Ararat, with what appears to be a mostly Epipaleolithic assemblage, is noteworthy.”

“The site is no hoax,” Klenck states, “and the size and excellent preservation of the edifice will enable it to be studied by numerous scholars.” He notes, “The large wood structure is buried under tons of stones and ice and most of the edifice remains unexplored.”

Regarding the initial carbon dating of the site at 4,800 B.C. by NAMI, Klenck states the initial discovery team comprised people with limited archaeological experience. He remarks, “Instead of obtaining samples from cores and unexposed locales and wrapping them in tin-foil, surface samples were retrieved with bare hands or cotton gloves. The date most likely reflects a sample that was contaminated by ancient visitors or modern explorers to the site. Most of the assemblage portrays a much earlier period.” He notes that all future radiocarbon samples should be delivered to archaeology departments at Istanbul University that will date the artifacts or send the samples to archaeometry facilities at the University of Berlin.

He also notes that a nearby cave exhibits artifacts similar to those in the large wood structure. Klenck states the cave site possesses botanical remains of chickpea, flax fibers and rope, pieces of fabric, bone artifacts, and vessels made of an organic material. He adds, “In both the large wood structure and cave, most of the bowls are made of an organic material, perhaps animal stomachs, and the flaps are folded over wood or bone collars. Several of these bowls resemble early ceramic types from the subsequent Pottery Neolithic Period (6,400-5,800 B.C.).” Klenck opines, “These artifacts prompt questions if bowls made from organic materials influenced the first pottery styles.”

“These sites are extremely important for archaeologists and conservators,” states Klenck, “particularly with regard to the preservation of wood and plant materials and the examination of architectural features. He is emphatic that the Antiquities Authority of Turkey needs to protect the research area and allow only approved archaeologists and conservators to visit the sites. “These precautions must be completed”, remarks Klenck, “to prevent adventurers and local mountain guides from breaking off pieces of wood and removing artifacts from the research area.”

He states the initial skepticism of the archaeological community is understandable but will fade as more researchers and conservators complete their analyses and publish reports in scientific journals. Klenck adds, “Here, the evidence is wide ranging. Also, very little of the structure is surveyed and much of the site is inaccessible being covered or blocked by ice.”

The discoveries on Mount Ararat coincide with academic discussions on the transition between the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs during the Younger Dryas stadial (10,900-9,500 B.C.) and the beginning of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period, around 9,600 B.C., where the first village communities in southeastern Turkey became associated with intensive agriculture and plant and animal domestication. Klenck states, “Some scholars see this transition period as cataclysmic with dramatic increases in sea-levels, flooding, animal extinctions, and decreases in human populations; others assert this phase was simply a cold, dry period evidenced by sparse vegetation.” “In the midst of this debate,” he notes, “there is a large all-wood structure and a cave, with artifacts resembling an Epipaleolithic assemblage, at a high elevation on Mount Ararat.” Klenck concludes: “The Ararat sites are very special because of their preservation and unique insight into the prehistoric past.”

Press Contact:
Joel Klenck
Paleontological Research Corporation
6800 Bird Road, Ste 381, Miami, FL 33155
j k l e n c k @ p a l e o r c . c o m
7862774844
http://www.paleorc.com/"

After MEDIA's showing in California, here is the summary:

方舟探索的客觀記錄 (It is not objective at all)

片長逾1小時45分鐘的《挪亞方舟驚世啟示2》內容豐富，主要是記錄史上首隊華人探索隊遠赴土耳其亞拉臘山尋找聖經記載的挪亞方舟遺跡，在當地土耳其庫爾德族探險隊的協助下，他們在4,200米的高峰上找到了一座冰封的巨型木結構，並深入其中的一些部分拍得內部實況。

《挪亞方舟驚世啟示2》對比木結構內外與聖經對挪亞方舟的描述，以客觀角度向觀眾闡釋木結構與挪亞方舟有極高程度的吻合性，簡言之有以下幾點：第一、木結構明顯是上闊下窄呈現一個船的形狀，而這種建築不可能是人類或動物的居所、或是以方底尖頂為標誌的古代宗教場所(If they haven't seen the ARK as a whole structure, how did they come to the conclusion that it is narrowing down from top to bottom? )；第二、木結構有上、中、下三層；第三、木結構內的木與木之間以入榫位互相連接，是非常古老的技術(did they actually go into three levels or just enter into a few much smaller chambers?)；第四、木結構內有一格一格的房間，裡面有橫樑及七口木釘(you found only 7 nails, that is it and only one chamber with nails)，疑是用來牷住牲口的。數位來自美國及土耳其的學者亦分別在片中發表評論表示木結構非常獨特，若以排除法來分析，很大機會就是挪亞方舟。

雖然木結構是否挪亞方舟尚待長時間的考古及科學鑑證，(then, don't claim that you have found the ARK)但這是全球首個探索方舟的影像式記錄(yes, it is only a search not a discovery)，對於歷史、考古及科學等各個學術領域來說甚有價值。

If you read it carefully, both the press release of Joel Klenck and the summary from California showing, a normal person will be convinced that they have found the ARK but who can or have verify what they stated in both articles.

Their deduction and imaginary ability is beyond human ability, they are simply amazing. In the meeting, they mainly used their personal risk taking and poor physical health to move the audience, all these can't prove anything at all. To me, it is very close to "tempting" God, not wise at all.

They continue to say that it is God who led them, they also said that for the first movie (which Yuen admitted that it is not the ARK), did God lead them to the wrong site? Don't "put God on the table", this is insulting and humiliating!

張國棟 / 2011-11-16 14:01:18

給小傳道

從 Dr. Amy L. Beam 那裡得悉，她那短片被人投訴（大家應該估到是誰），所以暫時被抽起。但她正找別的方法再公開出來。有消息我會立刻轉告各位。

小傳道 / 2011-11-16 12:11:48

回應

那YOUTUBE或PRESS RELEASE POINT的連結資料已經不再存在了。

Hin / 2011-11-16 10:31:24

Getting more interesting..

Joel Klenck posted his conclusion about the discovery to support MEDIA's claim:

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/print/580636

Joel is then challenged by Daniel Cheung:

http://hkepistemologist.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/

Joel is exposed by Amy Beam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMGe6HvZQz0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Joel appeared in the movie and he claimed he didn't know Parasut in the video clip taken by Amy Beam, isn't that interesting.

Watch them and make the judgment yourself.

資料庫 > 昔日講場

時代講場文章（至2017年2月14日）