How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

An understatement, I think, Nator.Getting back to the O.P., I suppose we could now say that the creationist side of the argument has come up with evidence that freshwater rats, after the flud, could have crossed the oceans on rafts of pure bullshit!Actually, throughout the whole thread of over 150 posts, no creationist has come up with any reasonable attempt to answer the question "How did animals get to isolated places after the flood?" so we may as well give up on it.

Oh thanx blue!!! I am gonna have to steal this!

I strongly suspect there's a forum rule violation (or near violation) in there somewhere.Adminnemooseus

---

2 + 2 = 4.an atom has a proton.

Don't worry, someone out there would argue against that. Trouble is you guys think that I am the one.

I told you that already, I have no arguement.
I was just discussing other possibilities. Ones that have not come from me, but other so called logical people in this forum.What pisses me off, is when you would consider it valid for them to bring it up, and not for me. So that is why I call BS.There is no other side of the arguement, I am capable of understanding all things, given enough study, and some of the things we have discussed are just simplestic, I totally get the "concept" (LOL) of objectiveness, and the "concept" of 2+2=4.Another funny thing, even though I have stated a few times in this thread, that if the flood happened it was a God thing, people still think that I am trying to explain how animals got to one place or another.Trying to figure out the flood from a scientific point of view to see if it was even possible (without God I might add) is just idiotic.And my points were valid, I am sorry if you are incapable of not understanding them, or maybe you do, and just won't admit it.I said my piece. There is nothing to decide for the readers. There are some people here that just don't know how to get along with others.

So tell me, for everyone reading this thread, what are the odds that animals could find their way to the remote islands after this flood/thread.Would anyone care to wager a 0-1?

I would have to say 0 since all living things not aboard the ark perished.

Well, Zero. Since there was no flood, not even a miraculous flood, the question is simply silly.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are asking the wrong question.We know that animals can cover varying distances over water by various means. The odds are neither zero or one but some other number that is closer to the low end than the high. But that is still not asking the right question.Some floodist have proposed floating mats etc. for explaining the biodiversity we see. The question is: Given the rather random nature of floating around and the original random nature of what does and does not get on a mat what are the odds we'd see a distribution like what we see?The odds are enormously, hugely, TEENY-TINY! To expect this process to sort animals based, among other things, on their genetics is absurd. That is absurd in the delusional, stupid, ridiculous, barking mad sense of the word absurd.

That is why I have always thought that if it did happen, then it was a God thing. Even as a child I imagined creation being redone, if it happened.
Why would God supernaturally remove everything, the naturally put everything back?
It seems like a waste of time to try and figure it out.
What cracks me up even more is people who look to define the flood as a natural event, without God.

So, you and I have no argument. You disagree with AiG, ICR and all the so-called creation "scientists" who want something taught in schools.You believe that God made the flood happen, used more miracles to rearrange the world afterward (even a whole new creation week) and then destroyed any evidence that the flood happened.Fine with me if you want to believe that.

I don't have a problem with creation science being taught in schools, but the content must be valid. i.e. if your going to show everything supporting the flood, then you must teach everything against it as well.I don't think that much effort should be put into teaching creation science though, it should be but a small chaptor, in the grand scheme of things.My real problem, is that I am not a scientist, and I do not know how much of creation science is actually calid. You would say none of it, because of the order in which they are going about things. But I think that at least some of it has to be science, even if the conclusions are wrong.If all of creation science is wrong, then I am not for it. But not based on the sole fact of starting with a theory, or a preconceived notion about God. To me, that is no different than starting with a theory, or a hypothesis that life orginated somewhere else in the solar system, and crashed here on earth, then trying to prove it. I believe it could have happened. To me the story more represents how we as humans let God down. I think just about everyone fantasizes about paradise, or living a place like the garden, but we don't live that way, even though we posess the capability to live that way. It's all in our decision process, and the battle between good and evil.
It also represents how God will save you if your righteous.
I think that is one of the morals of that story, and that rings true in my heart, so that is why I say, I believe it could have happened.

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with creation science being taught in schools, but the content must be valid. i.e. if your going to show everything supporting the flood, then you must teach everything against it as well.

---

Well, we know that the lesson on "everything that supports the Noachian Flood" wil be extremely short.So short, that there actually won't be a lesson.

quote:

---

I don't think that much effort should be put into teaching creation science though, it should be but a small chaptor, in the grand scheme of things.

---

In science class?

quote:

---

My real problem, is that I am not a scientist, and I do not know how much of creation science is actually calid. You would say none of it, because of the order in which they are going about things. But I think that at least some of it has to be science, even if the conclusions are wrong.

---

Nope.None of Creation Science is science because it isn't science.They do not do science, because they do not use the scientific method.If they do not use the scientific method, then their conclusions aren't just wrong. Their conclusions are not science.Even if their conclusions were correct, it still doesn't make what they are doing science.

quote:

---

If all of creation science is wrong, then I am not for it. But not based on the sole fact of starting with a theory, or a preconceived notion about God. To me, that is no different than starting with a theory, or a hypothesis that life orginated somewhere else in the solar system, and crashed here on earth, then trying to prove it.

---

I can't fathom why, after several years here, rat, you don't see a difference between those two stances.Creation science starts with preconceptions that they then cherry-pick and shoehorn evidence that appears to support it and ignore the rest. The initial preconceptions almost never change.Science starts with ALL of the evidence, then theories and hypotheses are proposed to organize and explain why the evidence (ALL the evidence) appears as it does. Then the hypotheses are tested to see how they hold up.In other words, the first method is a way to make a preferred outcome appear to be supported by scientific evidence, no matter if evidence is twisted or ignored.The second method is a self-correcting evidence-driven way to explore and explain why nature appears as it does.You see? Completely opposite approaches. Not similar at all.

What is the difference between teaching about Creation, as a possibility, and life on other planets? Of course it is part of science nator. Any data can be part of science. I am not an expert on it, but I would hope that they are at least in search of something genuine.
Just like spending all your efforts in search of a cure for cancer. Well I am obviously not for that, as I indicated in my first statement. Neither does the prospect of life on other planets.You think if we don't find life in this solar system, that they will stop looking for life elsewhere?Think of how much money is spent looking for life outside our solar system (SETI). It is mind boggling. Everyone knows there are religious implications if we do find life elsewhere, it makes us less special then, doesn't it? The way I see it is, we are here, that is evidence, we don't know how we got here, another evidence. Then go from there.Some people have theories of how aliens placed us here, if they research that, is it not science? Many discoveries throughout time have not always followed the rules.Don't get me wrong, there has to be a line drawn between what is science, and what is pure BS, or religion.{ABE}
I just wanted to add about what I think I feel from God. To me that is an evidence, and I would love to search for a viable explanation, isn't that science sort of?Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.