The YEC Hypothesis.
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Here's a few.
From talk.origins (Mark Isaac)
China:
The Supreme Sovereign ordered the water god Gong Gong to create a flood as punishment and warning for human misbehavior. Gong Gong extended the flood for 22 years. The supernatural hero Gun stole Growing Soil from heaven to dam the waters, but he was executed for his theft before he finished. However, his body didn't decay, and when it was cut apart three years later, his son Yu emerged in the form of a horned dragon. Yu drove away Gong Gong and finished damming the floodwaters. [Walls, pp. 94-98]
Bahnar (Cochin China):
A kite once quarrelled with the crab and pecked a hole in its skull. In revenge, the crab caused the sea and rivers to swell until the waters reached the sky. The only survivors were a brother and sister who took a pair of all kinds of animals with them in a huge chest. They floated for seven days and nights. Then the brother heard a **** crowing outside, sent by the spirits to signal that the flood had abated. All disembarked. The brother and sister did not know how they would live, for they had eaten all the rice that was stored in the chest. However, a black ant brought two grains of rice. The brother planted them, and the plain was covered with a rice crop the next morning. [Gaster, p. 98]
Lolo (southwestern China):
In primeval times, men were wicked. The patriarch Tse-gu-dzih sent a messenger down to earth, asking for some flesh and blood from a mortal. Only one man, Du-mu, complied. In wrath, Tse-gu-dzih locked the rain-gates, and the waters mounted to the sky. Du-mu was saved in a log hollowed out of a Pieris tree, together with his four sons and otters, wild ducks, and lampreys. The civilized peoples who can write are descended from the sons; the ignorant races are descendants of wooden figures whom Du-mu constructed after the deluge. [Gaster, pp. 99-100]
From Compton’s Encyclopedia
In China the flood myth had a different emphasis from the legends told in the West. The flooding of the land from time immemorial was seen as a hindrance to agriculture. The floodwaters were made to recede through the labors of a savior-hero named Yü the Great, who successfully dredged the land to provide outlets to the sea for the water. Thus was the great central river valley of China made suitable for agriculture and the development of civilization
I thought a hypothesis was formed to explain observation(s). What observation supported the so-called "YEC hypothesis" when it was formed? I question whether it even passes as a hypothesis in real science.
Dear Jackie,
It's great to see you back on the forum.
BTW The meaning of your question isn't really clear.
Ebal Trace
:rotfl:
Stratnerd
New member
Creationist hypotheses are based on text not on current observation. That's why I was calling them pseudohypotheses. Moreover, they are presented without the possibility of falsification (another reason they aren't really hypotheses).
Therefore, creationism is a pseudoscience, at best.
Last edited:
I suppose I should have been more clear about what I was looking for. Chinease civilization existed at the time that Noah's flood is said to have occurred (~2000 B.C., usually), and it is likely that some form of writing system existed at the time. I was looking for some sort of documentation which would support the Genesis account, not a set of separate legends with concrete differences from Noah's flood. "Global" floods are a reoccurring theme in various mythologies, but they don't offer any coherency between them.
The sources you've chosen seem to pose a bit of a problem for you. You must believe they are all myths, because they all contain claims incompatible with the Bible, but you also seem to want to treat them as reliable sources. So, which is it? Are they myths, or are they fact? If they are myths, how do we know that the Gensis account is not the same sort of myth?
Well, this answers my challenge in a literal sense, but it isn't compatible with the flood of Genesis, which, for instance, did not last 22 years. Also, according to the myth, the high mountains weren't covered, so it wasn't really a worldwide flood that wiped out all of humanity. (Source)
Once again, it meets my original challenge, but it isn't compatible with Genesis. Did God cause the flood, or was it a crab?
Here's a source for anyone else who might be wondering about this one.
Link
So this Tse-gu-dzih caused the flood, not God?
This doesn't sound like a global flood.
The sources you've chosen seem to pose a bit of a problem for you. You must believe they are all myths, because they all contain claims incompatible with the Bible, but you also seem to want to treat them as reliable sources. So, which is it? Are they myths, or are they fact? If they are myths, how do we know that the Gensis account is not the same sort of myth?
Well, this answers my challenge in a literal sense, but it isn't compatible with the flood of Genesis, which, for instance, did not last 22 years. Also, according to the myth, the high mountains weren't covered, so it wasn't really a worldwide flood that wiped out all of humanity. (Source)
Once again, it meets my original challenge, but it isn't compatible with Genesis. Did God cause the flood, or was it a crab?
Here's a source for anyone else who might be wondering about this one.
Link
So this Tse-gu-dzih caused the flood, not God?
This doesn't sound like a global flood.
I'm sorry you feel that way. There's so much more to life than that.
Of course, but first things first.
Dear Ebal Trace,
Thank you for the warm welcome. I was told many TOLers were depressed that I left (especially Christians like pyramidhead). It's good to speak with one of my associates again.
Your fan,
jackiechan
Stratnerd, I'm worried that your wording might give too much credit to YEC. See, pseudoscience implies that something is a fake but still has the appearance/feel of, or in some way still resembles it. We might call a counterfeit dollar bill a pseudo-dollar because it mimics the real dollar bill. This "YEC hypothesis" doesn't have any resemblance of a hypothesis.
PyramidHead
Active member
i don't see why
a) you use 'Christian' as an insult
b) why you have such distaste for me
I'm just clowning with you.
Besides the Bible, what other evidence is there for a young earth?
Ebal Trace
Ebal Trace
platypus
platypus
To reply to the above, there are many accounts of floods in ancient history, but it is fairly safe to say that those accounts can be explained in 1 of 2 ways...
1. There was a 'global' flood, but the term 'global' is misleading because, if it is too be the root of ALL ancient myths, it would have been a very long time ago when humans could not travel far, so everywhere they knew was flood. This would have been long BEFORE anyone really thought of Christianity, and as is the case with many biblical stories, they just made common myths compatible with their beliefs at the time.
2. Floods happen all the time, it is something people fear, and the myths arose because everyone knew what a flood was, and the myths spread because it was a common fear (even if a 'global' flood was unrealistic, it would still be believed, [not that believing flood stories is much of an oddity round these parts
])
that said, I'd like to ask my own question...
when one looks at science [prob a loaded term to many on this forum], science can track the moments of humans from a single 'origin' in Africa somewhere,and how humans spread across the globe, over thousands of years. Now lets hold off the argument about the timing of these findings, but I ask the question...
Why is the platypus only found in ONE part of the world. If it climbed off a boat in Africa somewhere, there would be several generations before i got to Australia, and it would have branched out from Africa to be all over the world. this is not the case for the platypus, and there are many other examples of animals that also show they did not start their migration from Africa around 4000 years ago.
How does a YEC explain this ?
platypus
To reply to the above, there are many accounts of floods in ancient history, but it is fairly safe to say that those accounts can be explained in 1 of 2 ways...
1. There was a 'global' flood, but the term 'global' is misleading because, if it is too be the root of ALL ancient myths, it would have been a very long time ago when humans could not travel far, so everywhere they knew was flood. This would have been long BEFORE anyone really thought of Christianity, and as is the case with many biblical stories, they just made common myths compatible with their beliefs at the time.
2. Floods happen all the time, it is something people fear, and the myths arose because everyone knew what a flood was, and the myths spread because it was a common fear (even if a 'global' flood was unrealistic, it would still be believed, [not that believing flood stories is much of an oddity round these parts
])that said, I'd like to ask my own question...
when one looks at science [prob a loaded term to many on this forum], science can track the moments of humans from a single 'origin' in Africa somewhere,and how humans spread across the globe, over thousands of years. Now lets hold off the argument about the timing of these findings, but I ask the question...
Why is the platypus only found in ONE part of the world. If it climbed off a boat in Africa somewhere, there would be several generations before i got to Australia, and it would have branched out from Africa to be all over the world. this is not the case for the platypus, and there are many other examples of animals that also show they did not start their migration from Africa around 4000 years ago.
How does a YEC explain this ?
Lithopaedion
New member
YEC can explain anything! ANYTHING! You just nead five nifty letters "ad hoc." So...
The platypus wandered from the ark only in one direction and ended up in Australia
or
It wandered in many directions, but died out everywhere except Australia. We just haven't found any fossils of it anywhere else.
or
It is a sub-kind of some kind which is, like other kinds, found in various places around the world.
Where do I pick up my Nobel Prize? :bannana:
Last edited:
I especially liked the "kind" explanation.
The Nobel? Sorry, you have to get in line behind bob b and stipe.