mememe

Justin_lun兄,

喺度我加多個link。希望你睇完先覆帖

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology

The term pseudoarchaeology is used by many to refer to those religious perspectives that do not follow the accepted norms of scientific inquiry, such as Creationism, as well as to the pursuit of untestable hypotheses or theories, such as the influence of UFOs or ancient astronauts on past civilizations. Pseudoarchaeology is most often associated with the investigation of theories generally discounted by scientific investigators, such as the existence of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat, lost continents such as Atlantis or Lemuria, and the idea of direct contact between the ancient civilizations of Egypt and the Maya. Religious groups may engage in pseudoarcheology in order to legitimize some present-day action.

明未?

mememe

justin_lun兄,

我想首先問問你:

由你(或基督徒)既立場﹐請問你係[信心上相信](believe on the basis of faith)挪亞方舟存在﹐抑或[事實上相信](believe as fact)。

如果你話基督徒係[信心上相信]既話﹐我會質疑點解有需要去實地考察。就如冇人會用科學或數學去證實神存唔存在或者耶蘇係唔係真係死後復活。根本信仰同現實就唔應該拉埋一齊講﹐更加唔應該為0左增加一本書既可信性(或信徒既數量)而用歪理去解釋呢個世界。

如果你話基督徒係[事實上相信]既話﹐我會嚴重質疑呢件"事實"既可信性。

第一﹐如果證據好似你講得0甘完善(註:電影中出現的“錨石”﹐在香港﹑加拿大﹑美國等地也有展出﹐也有化驗證明時間與聖經記載的洪水吻合)﹐呢份化驗報告好應該公諸於世。請問喺網度揾唔揾到呢份0甘有影晌力既化驗報告呢? 請問呢份0甘有影晌力既化驗報告係邊間化驗所得出0架呢? 如果化驗係依足科學既程序既話(即係化驗過程可以重覆﹐而化驗結果一致)﹐點解0甘大既發現喺科學/考古學界一0的迴響都無既? 基於上述理由﹐我有理由質疑挪亞方舟存在既可信性。註: 請justin_lun兄揾揾呢份化驗報告然後喺網上發表﹐好讓我哋全部人都知道電影既"證據"同"印證過程"並唔係生安白造既。

第二﹐將"挪亞方舟既研究"列為混淆歷史係因為佢係假考古學(pseudoarcheology)。稱之為假考古學既理由有三:

A) 不科學(Unscientific) - 大概係假考古學既死罪。挪亞方舟既研究得出既"發現"同"證據"無法令科學界同考古學界認同﹐因為引證既過程(如果有既話)都無科學根據﹐或從化驗結果得出既結論過於主觀。例: 請justin_lun兄引證"錨石"既化驗過程同得出既結論。

B) 本末倒置(Post-Hoc reasoning) - 基督徒從一開始(即研究前)就已經認定挪亞方舟既存在﹐繼而將所有發現同線索都鈉入為挪亞方舟存在既證據。0甘既"研究"唔單止嚴重主觀同不科學﹐更加會令研究人員墮入"選擇性注意" (selective attention)既陷阱。例:請justin_lun解釋點樣證實一塊(假設))約五千年前制成既金屬一定就係挪亞方舟既錨石。

c) 無法否定(Unfalsifiable) - 假如基督徒將整個亞拉臘山頭翻轉都揾唔到挪亞方舟既線索﹐佢哋大概會話挪亞方舟可能漂0左去第二個山頭﹐繼而翻轉附近既山脈。假如基督徒將全世界既土地翻轉都揾唔到挪亞方舟既線索﹐佢哋大概會話挪亞方舟既殘駭經過五千年既風吹雨打﹐已經屍骨全無 - 但係基督徒唔會因為揾唔到證據而接受"挪亞方舟唔存在"既Null hypothesis。世界上亦無所為既"負證據"去證明"挪亞方舟唔存在"﹐所以無論研究結果係乜都好﹐"挪亞方舟存在"既結論都一定會被基督認同。例: 請justin_lun兄指出乜嘢證據會證明"挪亞方舟唔存在"。

例: 如果有一個考古學組織想證明半人半馬既生物存在﹐而佢哋依照史書記載去到一個地方﹐發現有好多人類上半身(但缺腰部以下)既屍駭﹐而同時又喺該處發現好多馬類下半身(但缺頸部以上)既屍駭。呢個考古學組織憑此對世人發表已經發現半人半馬既生物曾經存在既證據。請問0甘既發表有咩問題?

喺度講多句 - 冇科學根據﹐喺客觀上假設無 - 如人馬獸﹐美人魚。

mememe

Justin_lun兄,

考古學係用客觀既態度去發掘同研究遺跡﹐文物﹐同書面記載﹐從而得知人類社會隨時間流逝所發生既變化同經歷(即歷史)。

Archaeology or archeology (from the Greek words αρχαίος = ancient and λόγος = word/speech/discourse) is the study of human cultures through the recovery, documentation and analysis of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artefacts, biofacts, human remains, and landscapes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeology

相反﹐假考古學就係用主觀或不專業既態度去發掘同研究遺跡﹐文物﹐同書面記載﹐繼而結論出虛構或垮張既歷史。

Pseudoarchaeology is an aspect of pseudohistory. Both of them are forms of pseudoscience and refer to the ideologically-driven, usually sensational interpretation of the past. Pseudoarchaeology is based on an interpretation of material remains and sites (which may be quite genuine themselves), using criteria that lie outside of a critical, scientific framework.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology

如何篡改歷史?

如果一個國家或團體想篡改歷史﹐佢哋大概會(1)首先摧毀真實歷史既證據(例如﹐納粹黨會摧毀猶太集中營﹐燒毀其記錄既書籍﹐文章) ﹐然後(2)從新翻譯僅存但意義不明確既事物為支持虛構歷史既證據(例如﹐日本質疑同企圖推翻南京既人口統計數字)。下一步(3)就係大規模地宣傳虛構歷史﹐煽動人民相信虛構歷史﹐及強烈否認真實歷史既發生(例如﹐達爾文推翻進化論﹐日本修改教科書﹐等等)。然後(4)如果勢力容許既話﹐再為虛構歷史加插假證據(例如﹐謊報化驗結果﹐偽造歷史記載﹐等等)。

在挪亞方舟事件上﹐因為真實歷史就係冇挪亞方舟既存在﹐所以可以省卻(1)。挪亞方舟既”研究”中不時會有本身並無意義既”發現”被認定為挪亞方舟存在既” 證據”(如”錨石”﹐山脈既形狀﹐攝影器材既故障﹐等等) – (2)。多個基督教團體鼓吹聖經現實化(Creationism為最佳例子)﹐大肆宣傳聖經既記載為現實既歷史 – (3)。至於(4)﹐我就有待0個份結論垮張但從未露面既化驗報告出現後再俾評語。

基督徒已认定诺亚方舟是历史事实”，这是你自己的偏见，并不是基督徒的意见！

呢點係自完其說。如果唔認為係歷史事實﹐點解要做考察?
你自己睇: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=672
http://www.redbeangarden.com/rbg06.htm

mememe

Justin_lun兄﹐

我晌帖#86用Wikipedia嚟到解釋俾你聽考古學(Archaeology)同假考古學(Pseudoarchaeology)係乜同埋有乜嘢分別。你晌帖#85話你唔明點解研究方向可以混淆歷史 - 我俾個定義你就係想解釋俾你聽挪亞方舟既研究係假考古學﹐而假考古學係混淆歷史既途經。

如果你對Wikipedia既定義有懷疑同保留﹐我歡迎你晌其他客觀既資料來源揾考古學同假考古學既定義出嚟。我相信應該會同Wikipedia所俾既大同小異:

Pseudoscience signifies false science. Pseudoscience is any scheme of theories, beliefs and methods wrongly considered as scientific. It differs from antiscience in the absence of pronouncements against the scientific method.

Based on it, many deceitful beliefs are derived supposing that the reality relies on one's perception, not on observation and experimentation.

http://biologycabinet.homestead.com/Pseudoscience.html

Pseudosciences are practices that masquerade themselves as science but have little or no scientific evidence or cohesion to support them. They claim to be factual, yet do not adhere to the scientific method.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/expla ... e=pseudoscience.php

Fantastic Archaeology (Pseudoarcheology): These are interchangeable terms meaning false or deceptive theories of archaeology that may or may not try to use false scientific evidence. Site of this sort may also try to prove their point by shedding a doubtful light on the proof of actual scientists.

True Believers: These are people who often want to believe whatever they choose to believe whether there is proof for it or not. They have no pressing need for verifiable evidence and often maintain their belief in spite of strong contrary proof. They tend to hold to an idea that science is unable to answer all of our questions or is unable at this time to do so.

http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~mmrobins/
*************************************************************************

陨石灭绝恐龙、阿度兰提斯、宇宙爆炸论等全都是研究者早就认为是历史

你係唔係冇睇到帖#73同#75呢? 邊個話隕石滅絕恐龍、阿特蘭提斯、宇宙爆炸論係歷史嚟0架? 咩研究者呀? 堪輿學者呀?

隕石滅絕恐龍係有證據支持既猜想(Hypothesis)﹐其可信性大概係理論(Theory) 既程度。
宇宙爆炸論同上。
阿特蘭提斯既研究純屬猜想﹐本身並無足夠證據支持佢既正確位置﹐實際年齡﹐甚至存在與否 - 呢一點同挪亞方舟極其相似。

你舉既三個例子全部都唔係”歷史”﹐你硬要話係既話只會招人恥笑。

mememe

Henrywing兄,

對我嚟講﹐聖經同史記風馬牛不相及 - 一本係宗教書籍﹐另一本歷史記錄﹐唔應該混為一談。不過你選擇點”相信”係你既自由﹐只要你既”信念”唔會阻礙其他人既言行﹐權利﹐同社會文化既發展。

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c014.html

Hugh Norman Ross, President of Reasons to Believe, Inc., Pasadena, California / Born 1945 / Christian speaker and author / Ph.D. in astronomy, University of Toronto / Former Minister of Evangelism, Sierra Madre Congregational Church, Sierra Madre, California.

Dr. Hugh Ross唔係無神論者﹐而佢既Progressive Creation理論更加被基督教同埋科學家一齊否定。

基督教對佢既睇法:
http://www.soulcare.org/General/Resources_Biblical_Authority.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp

科學界將Progressive Creation歸鈉於Creationism因為Progressive Creation需要一個Intelligent Designer。

考古的首要條件是假設某件是事件，是曾經存在，才能考查，如果所有都是存否定論和不可能思想，就什麼都不用做了！

你搞錯喇。考古學既首要條件係從觀察中作出猜想(Hypothesis)﹐然係作出研究﹐如果有足夠證據支持就將猜想升級為理論(Theory)。如果冇證據支持就捨棄猜想﹐接受否定假設(Null Hypothesis)。

如果一開始就假設(Assume)事件存在﹐0甘根本就唔使研究﹐因為結論(即事件存在與否) 一早已經憑假設成為定局。

mememe

Henrywing兄﹐

聖經是記載的形式寫成的，是歷史的一部份，所以應看成是曾經存在的，然後才去考察

用記載既形式寫成唔見得就係歷史既一部份 - 野史同傳說都可能含有歷史成份。(註:三國演義﹐西遊記)

冇嘢係”應看成”0架!冇證據就只係”猜想為”。考察後揾到證據先至有資格稱作”證實為”。

史記冇主觀既宗教包伏﹐其內容可純粹用作參考而無需背著”零錯誤”既負擔。只係呢兩點已經證明聖經同史記係唔同Genre既書籍。

有誰能夠否定了聖經的真確性? 講得好。就係因為冇可能否定(Falsify)而導至聖經同史記相差0甘遠。