發佈者是Dr. Andrew Snelling，創造論科學家。
報告的英文原文，按此。
報告的繁體中文翻譯，按此。
報告的簡體中文翻譯，按此。
關心方舟/謊舟的讀者，必須細閱。
在此只引述 Snelling 的結論，其他討論待續：「只要我們作科學邏輯的推論，就得出一個結論，木樣本不可能來自興建方舟的大洪水前的樹木。基於現存的碳-14證據，縱然香港與土耳其人聯合探索隊宣稱，這些叫人著迷的木遺骸在亞拉臘山發現，但這些器物不可能來自方舟。無論他們發現的是什麼，那些東西都不是方舟餘骸。」
星期三, 11月 09, 2011
亞拉臘山木樣本碳14化驗結果 - 正式科學報告 - 終於面世
發佈者是Dr. Andrew Snelling，創造論科學家。
報告的英文原文，按此。
報告的繁體中文翻譯，按此。
關心方舟/謊舟的讀者，必須細閱。
在此只引述 Snelling 的結論，其他討論待續：「只要我們作科學邏輯的推論，就得出一個結論，木樣本不可能來自興建方舟的大洪水前的樹木。基於現存的碳-14證據，縱然香港與土耳其人聯合探索隊宣稱，這些叫人著迷的木遺骸在亞拉臘山發現，但這些器物不可能來自方舟。無論他們發現的是什麼，那些東西都不是方舟餘骸。」
訂閱：
發佈留言 (Atom)
4 則留言:
Dear Rev. Chan, as a working earth scientist I hope you'd welcome my comments here. I share Dr. Snelling's intention to use science to disprove unfound claims about the bible. However, the scientific arguments as well as the scientific credibility of Dr. Snelling are highly questionable, and what he said under the session "Why Does Pre-Flood World Yield Inflated C14 Ages?" is ubiquitously rejected by modern geologists. Therefore, the report itself I believe fails to serve as evidence against the validity of the claimed-to-be "ArK", and a study by real, working scientists are much needed to serve that purpose.
Hello everyone. I'm a total stranger to everybody here, but to this interesting discussion I'd like to contribute even just a little bit.
I think it's important that we are not distracted by Snelling's C14 inflation position; he's a creationist scientist, that shouldn't be surprising, I'm sure that's why NAMI went to him in the first place! But we shouldn't discredit the entire "report" because of his erroneous standpoint on C14 inflation.
From my perspective, the real crux of this "report" is the table that he reproduced. We need only consider 2 things here: 1) Is the report genuine, did Snelling receive it from NAMI? 2) If it were, is NAMI's use of the result of the report up to par with standards in the field of science?
It's not exactly a nail to NAMI's coffin, but it certainly put yet another huge question mark on this whole business. And the only way to erase this question mark is for NAMI to make the wood samples available to the public for examination.
Dear Howtindog, thanks so much for your comment. Totally agree with the "crux" of the report.
You are not a stranger to many of us. I enjoy watching your channel from time to time. Keep up your good works.
Dear Rev Chan,
My two pence for chiming in, I am no expert in either archaeology or geology. Not even a layman. I am a lay believer, however, who believes in the Creation, although not necessarily according to literal interpretation of the Bible.
I think the 'crux' of all this NAMI business lies not on their scientific claims but on the weight they have been putting on the 'significance' of Noah's Ark in the entire Christian Faith.
I mean I do believe there existed a Noah's Ark as described in the Bible but I do not believe that this is the 'crux' of my faith or anything close to it - if even relevant at all.
The tone of the NAMI propaganda has always been like "proof of Noah's Ark = proof of the Bible = conclusive support for the Christian Faith", and by making that claim they have been making money after money after money. Rather than spreading the Gospel.
That is exactly what we on the other side of the NAMI camp have been denouncing.
發佈留言