Truth of Noah 方舟之真相

星期六, 5月 14, 2005

Amazing Media

By: Hin

I am amazed that ME is willing to expose more of their problems in such a way. When I first read the article, I was so mad that I don't even have time to point out some of their problems, there are lots of them.

Regarding the experiment 300 years ago, Silver Fox never said that they don't have any scientific knowledge nor their knowledge is not as good as others but he is simply asking what kind of technology they used to date the grain as a few thousands years ago. ME is using死鷄撐飯蓋 and putting words in others' mouth. They are just amazing but they have been using this trick when they quote those Christian leaders and pastors, 日光之下無新事.
I am so amazed that they still claimed that they are the first Chinese group who discovered the Ark. I am so glad that this article is written by Media and not others. They explicitly made this claim right here in this article. Then, we go back to the very first concern that all of us have, is that a discovery or an assumption, is that a scientific proven fact or a faith projection? Releasing such an article are stating the stand of ME. Once again, they are claiming that they have discovered the Ark. Show us the proofs besides the 4m beam, besides the sound that you think is stone hitting wood, besides those unproven stories passed down through generations, besides those "anchor stones" whom no one knows for sure who put them there....if you think these proofs are strong enough, then invite the National Geographic, CBC, listen to your presentation.

When you criticize Silver Fox saying things inside his own study room, I think you are the one who is doing that. Have a press conference, release the news to the whole world, I am sure many will come, this is the discovery of the century. See if your "evidences" can even get them come to the press conference in the first place, don't just stay in your own little study room and project your dreams, let the whole world know about it.

You have said in your promotions that you want others to know Christ by your discovery, well, let's help the whole world to believe in Christ by this! Don't just produce this movie in Chinese, have the English version, French version, German version, Russian version, Japanese version...out as soon as possible, as fast as your Chinese book. Do you really have the desire to help others to know Christ by this discovery, if you do and you think you really discover the Ark as you said, then do it. I am sure you can easily raise the money for it and then you can say that you are the first Chinese organization who can reach out to so many nations...Isnt' that great? Come on, if you want to do it, do it the whole thing 做戲做全套. But, I doubted!!!!

Even those reporters and scientists will come, will your evidences be convincing enough to deserve a positive report from them. I doubted whether they will even come to the press conference. I am sure ME is not sure whether that is the Ark or not and they are hoping they can find more evidences and proofs in the future. The point is that they are so eager to be the first Chinese who discovered the Ark, they just release the news, they hope by being the first, they will be greatly appreciated by the Christian public and will gain their support and trust in their future projects.

Their discovery has such a weak foundation, their hope also has a very weak foundation. This is an illusive hope, I advise them to turn back before they fall off the cliff or the balloon breaks. But, I doubted they are that smart, they are just amazing but not smart enough in this case.

Some practical consideration

By: Hin

1. I think after this time, the recommendation from pastors and Christians workers won't be so easily given to ME in the future (I am a bit surprise that 蘇穎智 is still willing to be used by them. For 吳宣倫 and梁燕城, I am not surprise at all). The other people will seriously consider when ME asked them to recommend their products such as 天地男兒. So, it is not that there is no effect at all. Be encouraged!

2. We need to find out all the e-mail addresses of these people and refer the website to them or at least notify them about our comments and concerns. It is not right to blame someone when they might not know the information that we know. We can't assume they are as discernable as we are, they give their support mainly out of good intention except a few. They have no intention to harm anyone or to join in the lie. I don't think so but they need to know. So, send them the information.

3. Call them up one by one or even pay them a visit. Use your real name to share with them, you don't have to tell them your 筆名in these discussions. Just introduce yourself as a Christian and share with them your concern, ask for half to one hour's time, tell them you respect him or her as a knowledgable Christian leaders and would like to share your concerns with them and would like to listen to their comments. Don't begin by blaming them or criticizing them of their ignorance and blind faith in ME. I used this and it works. Once I got a few comments and when I got their permission to post them, I will post them on the website There are still faithful and wise servants of God out there, they just need us to help them to express themselves. How much I wish the DVD is out, can somebody find it for us and let us know where can we get one. Those CD and other products are just repeating each other, nothing new, just different package. If we want other leading Christian leaders to comment on the movie, they must see the movie themselves and most of them won't go to those meetings due to their busy ministry. One already asked me for the movie but I didn't have it.

4. So far, I came across, not intentionally, three Christians: one lay person, one Christian leader, one pastor, all told me that they have been reading what is posted here and all have reservation about ME. These are those who told me and there are a lot who had and won't tell me at all. I think what we did is working. It might be a small beginning but it is working.

By the way, I am sure this article will jump from the 10th place on the list to the top 3 in a few days.

Thank you Christian Times for providing such a wonderful place for good discussion and reflection.

For sure Media is reading all these too, I just hope that they will do the wise thing and don't do any more damage to themselves. The Bible said that it is only wise to admit one's mistake and turn around; for those who refuse to do so, they are destroying themselves. Media's staff, please spend sometime to find this verse, it is in the book of Proverbs. Reading the Proverbs might help you all at this time.


By: 海尼夫


1. 借題發揮的太極辯護法

銀狐君原文評論:「對於深信挪亞方舟仍然存留在山上的探險家來說,總會有某一些神推鬼撞的力量可以令方舟保存在亞拉臘山上,但若要令人信服此說,特別是沒有信仰者,則必須拿出有力的證據。」原是指到影音早前所說:「假如方舟遺址真的不存在,我們仍會繼續插尋下去。」(時代論壇917)影 音在回應中,花了三大段批評銀狐君否認方舟存可能仍存在於山上是閉門造車,是「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。」如此的反駁是 轉移視線。敢問影音在電影及小說中指稱所拍攝的地方就是方舟時,曾經提出過甚麼證據?花三大段指出方舟有可能繼續存在,如何能叫人信服所拍攝的山頭就是方 舟?影音花了三段文字轉移視線後,竟對銀狐君作出此批評:「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。」敢問影音 在電影和小說有何嚴格、專業,非想像式推論和借此而出的大膽聲稱?其實銀狐君是指方舟有可能已不存在,並無主張方舟一定不存在。


2. 討論科學哲學可以平反嗎?


影音似乎企圖用Feyeraband平反自己那一種不能夠被事實推翻的尋找方舟的意圖。影音以為科學方法就是可以「作出各種假設,不論這假設如何荒謬,或與當前主流理論對,要能提出理論一致的科學解釋,就可嘗試探索證據。」因此,影音認為他們可以堅持有方舟,然後致力尋找,就算找不到,仍然可以不言放棄(繼續籌款?),無論怎樣的結果,都一直堅持要找到方舟。然而依據上述觀點,影音豈不首先要先提出一個理論一致的解釋,才可合理地探索證據嗎?這個「理論一致的科學解釋」是針對甚麼而作的解釋呢?影音的文章沒有再提,不過依上下文合理的推測,是指針對觀察和資料作的解釋。怎麼才算是提出了一個理論一致的「科學」 解釋呢?影音同樣沒有解說,不過筆者未能從上下文推測出來。其實,影音在企圖解釋自己永不言棄的方舟探索是合乎科學精神的辯護中,根本未能解釋甚麼是科 學。不過姑且先依這原則,這樣,究竟影音要有甚麼觀察和資料才可以作出方舟存在的假設,繼而不斷嘗試探證據呢?據方舟電影所示,這些觀察和資料只是過去一 些有關方舟的傳說,幾次不同年代不同地點上山的考察結果(但記得好像只有一次有木碎的年代鑑別),和幾幅可作多種解釋的衛星圖片。能夠與這幾項觀察和資料一致的解釋可以多於一個,究竟怎樣才算是一個「科學」的解釋呢?若「方舟仍在山上」只是一個理論一致的解釋而不是一個理論一致的科學解釋,則是否可以平反「假如方舟不存在,我們仍會繼續插尋下去」是一個「基於人的幻想永遠不能被事實推翻的不滅神話」的指控呢?影音高談濶論的科學哲學帶我們去了那裡?

3. 哥白尼的故事說明了甚麼?

哥白尼其實不是因為認為可以任意提出一個理論一致的科學解釋,繼而探索證據,於是提出日心說。哥白尼乃是面對既有的天象觀察和數學原理,嘗試用另一個途徑對資料作出同樣合理的解釋。當時所作出的新解釋與舊的解釋都同樣符合已知的天文數據,只是日心說更美麗elegant,更簡單(沒有epicircles的需要)。影音可能太急於替自己平反,竟聲稱哥白尼提出的日心說 「地球圍著太陽轉」─ 是 不能夠被事實推翻的,此聲稱明顯是錯的。筆者同情地理解,影音可能想說「日心說」此違背當時常識的理論是可與所有已知的事實配合,未有被當時的觀察所推 翻。哥白尼的故事,正好指出內在一致性不足以界定科學方法。當多於一個理論或假設可解釋同樣的現象時,如何取捨,如何比較?銀狐君嘗試從其他假設來解釋影 音所發現而未作檢驗的東西(如木結構),其實這正合乎影音自己提出的科學方法。影音不斷要求銀狐君提出作出另類假設的理由,彷彿銀狐君主張他的假設就是真相。事實是,銀狐君並無任何主張,只是指出要解釋「木結構」,其實有不少可能性。為甚麼銀狐君所任意提出的假設不已是另一個「理論一致的科學解釋」 呢?若影音需要解釋的現象與資料同時可以用「我們發現方舟」與「我們發現的只是其他東西」來解釋,那麼這兩個假設是否都具有相等的科學地位?留意這兩個假 設是互相排斥的。如果影音不能排除後者,那麼影音是否仍然可以無視後者的可能性而繼續獨斷地聲稱找到方舟,並寫一大篇文章來狡辯自己是抱著科學精神作研 究?

影 音主張「科學的發現是根據一些推論來建立假說,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」,並指 他們正是採取這種態度作研究。敢問影音由推論所建立之「方舟仍在山上」此假設,受到後來甚麼新證據支持,使你們相信這假設很可能是真實的?這豈不正是銀狐 君一直追問的證據嗎?而這所謂新證據,原來只是一個走曾步入的山洞,一塊大石,一個平頂,一個「木結構」,和一個機件失靈的故事?繞了一個圈了,講了科學 哲學,講了哥白尼故事,究竟回答了甚麼,反駁了甚麼?

4. 舉證的責任在誰身上?

銀狐君對傳說中從山上發現的小麥曾經過化驗這一點提出疑問,質疑在現在科學革命前有何辦法鑑別小麥的年代。影音含糊地說在科學革命前,中東的科技比西方先進,以為這樣就足以指出「在伊朗化驗一些麥子是完全可能的。」敢問以上的一堆話是否已指出當年中東的科技事實上已 先進到能鑑別麥子的年代呢?若有人主張三百年前的伊朗已發射了人造衛星,是否同樣可以說由中世紀至十七世紀的中東科技比西方進步就可平息懷疑?報導了人家 的傳說,是否就已經足以令該傳說成為找到方舟的一項證據?請告訴我,還可以更兒戲嗎?影音有負起舉證的責任嗎?怎麼忽然責任突然落在銀狐君身上了?


5. 影音的一貫態度

影 音不斷質疑孤君的誠意,理性,欠缺反省。坦白說,筆者完全認同銀狐君所提出的質疑,反而對影音的誠意,理性,和欠缺反省深感憂慮。曾有牧者呼籲我們當留心 機構的誠信,有信徒呼籲小心把福音變做一種炫耀,這都是我深切認同的。因此,我還要繼續努力呼籲眾教會慎防馬灣出現驚世大災難。


By: 影音使團



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。


   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。


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。






By: 飲者


我本來從沒有期望影音使團在這事情上會有甚麼回應,也從沒期望會有甚麼改變。(是的,我很悲觀。)再加上我沒有看過《方舟》一 片,更加覺得沒有發言權。因此一直都是旁觀各位的發言,只在「首部華人製作的大型紀錄片式電影」和「打破票房紀錄」兩個問題上忍不了口,插過兩趟嘴,正一 下視聽。(那兩個問題可能比較次要,但事實清楚明確,無須等待科學考證,而且是本人專長範圍。)

但是看到影音使團這樣正式公開地回應,也就帶著期望地細心讀,總希望讀到convincing arguments呀。但讀下去,只能說是奇文共賞,嘆為觀止,真佩服銀狐和海尼夫還有Hin等各位還有如此耐性,逐點談論。

我對影音使團這篇回應只有一個overall comment:捨本逐末,抓著批評者的枝節來狂打,卻沒有處理人家提出的問題。講得白一點,是遊花園。



香港是全世界最具活力和創富力的華人社群,將資本主義的優勢發揮盡致,市場力量超乎一切制度下衍生的力量。教會身處這個基督徒非主流的城市,背負著歷史的 重擔,一直以傳播福音信息、令教會增長、植堂拓建為使命,在屬靈與屬世的模糊線中摸索前行,演變出一套非常本色化的運作模式,當中不乏可取之處。然而近年 愈見教會文化猛遭世俗化入侵,消費主義在教會盛行,雖然製造一個表面的繁華景象,卻恐怕愈多教會建造在沙土之上,甚至偏離聖經的教導,流向市場主導的企業 化經營。

  資本主義迷信市場的力量,只要抓著消費者的心理,製造感覺上的需要,服務和產品自能立足市場,再加以宣傳和包裝,定位和策略,業務乃能一日千里。教會 不能抱殘守闕,固步自封,當社群本身就在市場中生活,本可汲取市場的工具,衍化為福音的策略,最重要是這些東西只應作為器皿,承載的必須是真理信息,策略 和包裝只是過程而非終極目標,決不能本末倒置。大企業追求高增長和好業績,往往忽略人們真正的需要,教會必須以後者為增長的價值。



  信仰私有化也是典型的消費市場產品,人們到教會為求心靈慰藉、情感的寄託、精神的按摩,於是部分教會避談悔罪改過、負架從主、門徒代價;更把信仰的內 涵縮窄至只有個人經歷而沒有社會見證,只有此時此刻而沒有歷史也沒有將來,只有官能刺激而沒有核心價值;像永恆真理、國度歷史、社會關懷一類信念,因缺乏 市場而被抽離於主要議題之外。

  教牧權柄的沒落也是消費主義下的副作用,正如一個能推動好業績的CEO才是好的CEO,一個懂得製造明星效應的演員才是好演員,一場落足本錢堆砌的聚 會才是好聚會,於是大家朝「好」的一面模仿學習,將蒙召的呼聲、委身的使命,淹沒在教會業績的檔案下,滿足「僱主」和「消費者」的需要,而非忠於上主的託 付。



影音使團, 你們何時才能深切反省, 實事永是?

By: John Hung


對你們的「勇氣」, 真感到嘆為觀止。

總括所有批評, 都是針對你們「自稱」找到方舟, 「強調」自己找到方舟, 「宣揚」自己找到了方舟, 但又舉不出嚴謹、學術及客觀的証據而作出, 所以, 我真的不明白, 你們猛鑽牛角尖回應銀狐幹嗎?

請你們以基督徒的誠實及坦白, 以知識份子的良知(你們也算是讀過書的知識份子吧?)舉出科學證據, 列出同行的專家名稱及學歷, 請世界上知名的考古學家及神學家參與鑑證你們舉出的證據。

如有如此震撼性的發現(我強調, 如有), 你們邀請National Georgaphic一起重返現場重新探險求證如何? 「如果」真有如此重大的發現, 我相信National Georgaphic一定會參與, 費用也不用影音職員不斷重覆又重覆、重覆又重覆、重覆又重覆地向全港的信徒籌款, 所需的技術及專家也不用麻煩你們了. 只是, 你們有這個膽量嗎? 你們舉得出可信的證據邀請人家嗎? 不然, 香港電台又如何?

影音使團, 虧你們還有面目大言不慚. 如果蘇恩佩還在, 如果楊牧谷牧師還在, 不知他們老人家看到影音使團的所作所為, 會作何感想?

影音使團, 少些籌款, 少些宣傳, 少些做show, 做些實事吧!

其實, 只要盡了力, 只要嘗試過, 只要當時已盡心盡性盡意嘗試找過方舟, 找不到, 又如何? 有誰會嘲笑你?

就算影音使團真的沒有找到方舟, 就算第一個找到方舟的不是華人, 這又如何? 就樣就代表我們的信仰不真實了嗎? 就樣就代表當年沒有出現過方舟嗎? 這樣就代表我們信的上帝不真實了嗎? 如影音使團作如此想, 則不知影音使團信的是什麼樣的信仰, 也不知影音使團傳的是什麼樣的福音。

是就說是, 不是就說不是, 影音使團, 別再理會誰了, 說回正題(大家都差點忘記了), 喂, 你們真的找到了方舟了嗎? 證據在那裡? 影音使團, 我John Hung在這裡非常懇切及極度誠懇地公開挑戰你們, 舉出證據, 邀請專家鑑證吧!

John Hung

What a Strategy?

By: Hin

I don't think Silver Fox deserve such a treatment from ME.

I am also amazed that ME can spend so much time to put down somebody and yet no time to present their financial statement in a better way!

In the whole article, they are trying to discredit the reliability and credibility of Silver Fox. Again and again, they try to overpower Silver Fox by comparing their actual experience and the "study room" of Silver Fox.

In many movies such as "Crouching tiger, hidden dragon", we saw people flying everywhere among bamboos. We will question the possibility and then the director said they are actually among the bamboos while making the movie and you are just in your "study room", you have no right to question us at all. Does that make any sense at all?

They tried to attack Silver Fox's example but they didn't realized that Silver Fox is just using example to point out their problems which they didn't answer at all. Even if the examples are not well chosen, the questions raised are still valid. Where are the answers?

ME said that the walls of the cave is covered with volcano ashes and the floor is covered with ice but when they threw stones inside, they can hear the sound of stone hitting wood. Aren't the walls covered with volcano ashes and the floor is covered with ice? Do I have to be there in order to raise such a question? I don't think so.

What about the anchor stones? There are stories about the Ark for generations and could those stones be monuments that is being set up by the local people to remember the story. It might be a way of creating a tourist center! There are always all kinds of possibility but possibility must be proven. The stones are 1 to 2 tons, how many people do we need in order to lift such a stone? How many people in the Ark? How many men and how many women? Think about it. Do I have to be in the Ark or besides the anchor stone in order to raise such a question, I don't think so.

When ME said that the science in Iran is far beyond what we think, well, than how far beyond? What are the dating method that they used. In the same way that they question the example of Silver Fox about Adam, did they have any other examples of Iran's dating method at that time. Did Iran ever dated any object 300 years ago and still exist in today's museum or some labs? If they have no such examples, how can they know they even have a dating method at all that can do such a job. They should use the same method that they challenged Silver Fox to challenge their own findings. It will be interesting, very interesting!

ME must defend themselves because their credential is hanging on this movie. They have their plans set out to build the theme park, it will be such a big project that will affect them for years to come. They can't loose this or even take one tiny step backward, they can only push on and stick with their conclusions. As someone said before, Me is like a balloon, the more you blow, the sooner it will break.

When ME challenged Silver Fox for challenging them, they are also posting more questions for themselves for challenging Silver Fox challenging them. Why not stay on the right track and stop distracting people? Answer those questions directly.

The evidences that you have is the 4m beam and the sound from the cave when throwing a stone inside it. Let's say that I believe the Ark is still there, in one piece or many pieces, but it doesn't mean the cave is the Ark.

When I met a girl, the girl is willing to come out with me alone to dinner, she is willing to answer my phone calls. We shared many interests, we have the same value system and same faith. We are about the same age and same height. We get along fine and....all these are possibilities that we might get married one day. Fine, but don't say that we will until we actually did. Possibility is just a possibility and not a fact.

Please, we should be childlike but not childish!