评论
打印
It's a nice story but when you take a second look, the story just doesn't stack up,
这个故事是不错，但如果你再看一下，你会发现这个故事无法连起来，
there is something fishy about it, it just doesn't make sense.
里面有些东西值得怀疑，它并不是真实的。
In science they say there is nothing sadder than a beautiful theory ruined by a single awkward fact.
在科学界，最悲哀的事莫过于一个完美的理论被一个不可否认的事实摧毁。
And Keller and Stinnesbeck thought they could see lots of awkward facts.
而Keller和Stinnesbeck认为他们能找到许多这样的反面事实。
Even the first time that we came to this place, we noticed there was something wrong with Jan Smit's story,
我们第一次来到这里，就发现Jan Smit的观点中有一些错误，
just too many details that you have to explain some other way.
很多事实都解释不通，只能是其它解释。
Their first awkward fact was evidence of ancient life, fossilised in the sandstone.
第一种反面证据来自沙岩中一种古老生物的化石。
We have this lower grey level where we find feeding structures,
在这个较低的灰色地层中，我们找到了这种摄食结构，
feeding tracks of a probably worm-like animal which well, ate the sediment
很可能是某种吃泥沙的蠕虫类动物留下的取食痕迹，
and we have another layer here with dwelling structures of a crab.
这里的另一个地层中有螃蟹的住室。
It looked to them as if the lower layer of sandstone had been thoroughly colonised by worms over months or even years.
在他们看来，沙岩的下层地层中几个月甚至几年都可能住满蠕虫。
Only afterwards was the upper layer deposited and colonised by the crabs.
直到后来堆积起了上层地层，并且住进了螃蟹。
It seemed to them that there were two layers created at different times
他们认为这两个地层形成于不同的年代，
and not within a couple of days as Smit had suggested.
而并非Smit提出的两天内形成的说法。
