How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

No but it makes the measurement subjective to the equipment being used. Plus nothing can ever be measured exactly, because it is always moving.

2 drops of water + 2 drops of water = 1 drop of water.

I never said it didn't.What I said, and I will repeat myself, is that if you use a buz-saw to cut a 3 inch block, 3 times, you will not end up with 1 inch sides. That is why I commented that the puzzle has a flaw.That doesn't mean that I do not understand the concept of the puzzle or the objectiveness of it.

I disagree, but will be willing to accept another answer.
But what you just said is what I have been saying all along. Subjective applies to the people doing the experiment. Since we view everything in the world through our minds, then most everything has a flare of subjectiveness to it.My original quote was "show me one thing that is not subjective."I did not say that objectiveness doesn't exist, by definition.Plus it is most certainly subjective to the equipment being used. If a piece of equipment can only measure things to a 1/6th of an inch in accuracy, then that is the ebest we can do with that particular piece of equipment. Which may not be good enough to get an objective results. You wouldn't be able to produce any objective results using that equipment in quantum mechanics. So the test is indeed subjective to the equipment being used.Which is different from absolute as you stated. So what good is objectiveness if it could be wrong?
That is why I am saying that objective results are subjective to how we view things, and how we figure things out.

But that is not a representation of what happened to me at all. That is a useless comment, and an emotional one I might add.Your trying to condense my experiences into something simple, and it can't be done. We have been over this before. It's getting tiresome with you. I just saw that movie, funny. Of course it makes no sense, because it proves your point wrong. You've just described a good portion of my experiences.
The rest are purely subjective (to me) although others have experiences the same thing. Many people have claimed to have encounters with the Holy Spirit, including ones that do not even know about it.
That makes it more than an anecdote. Even if it is still subjective, it is an evidence, and part of the equation. I cannot prove God to you, I have stated that, no one can. It's not about proving anything.Finding God for yourself, is not science nator, maybe when you stop looking for Him that way, you'll find Him. When did I say that they were independently verified?
You made that up.
A portion of them were, but those are the subjective portions. Then it's not an anecdote, end of conversation.
Good night, this is way off-topic.

Good, then the next time a few drops of water combine together, and fall off a roof, and hit you in the nose, don't say, I felt a drop of water. Drop (liquid) - Wikipedia2+2=5
2 + 2 = 5 - Wikipedia

Yes, nator, I am well aware of that. I posted it in all fairness. But your reply wasn't fair, because you only picked what applied to your side of the debate from that page.Things are not always black and white nator, I keep telling you that.
There is no me vs you, I look at it as if we were in this thing called life together, even if we disagree much. Disagreeing is healthy IMO.

Your right, I don't exist, and none of this happened. As a matter of fact the men in the clean white suits are waiting outside my door, and they are coming to take me away ah ha!I'll be the one with the pink carnation, and I will be the one twittling my thumbs and toes. Your alive, so obviously somethings going on. Thats so obvious by your lack of replies. Love is subjective, yet it objectively exists. You want to discount all my experiences solely based on their objectiveness, which is a mistake in my subjective opinion. When you notice a change in them, and can feel God's love through them. I'm not saying this is me, because it is difficult at best to show you God's love through an internet forum, but I do take a lot of my time to talk to you, and trust me, my time is quite valuable. Not when I look up the definition of anecdotal. It just doesn't quite fit. Um, no, and that is not necessary for it to be data. You don't need matLab to understand that 2+2=4 My life, before and after. It was all exactly the same, funny uh? Everyone who knows me. If I was trying to troubleshoot a heating system or something, yes, but we are talking about RL here. My life is not an experiment, but that doesn't exclude it from objective data, I am alive you know.It's the conclusion that is subjective, with good odds. That doesn't make them lies, or not data. They did happen.
But if you want to believe they didn't, or if your calling me a liar, them too bad. Thats right. But it doesn't mean that there are aliens. It just means that it is not anecdotes, like you claim. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. Yes, to them it may be real. The truth of the experience may be different. Many people have tried to explain the whole alien abduction thing. Maybe one day it will be figured out, just like God. Because it is amazing nator.
My wish is that it would happen to you, I would love to see you explain it, and run into the same debate with someone else.Let me remind you again, I do not discount that it is not real, that is why I constantly test it everyday, as unbiased as I can possibly be (given my own mind).Would you like to set up some tests? They should be in accordance with what Jesus promised us. I have to say faith, nator, because you wouldn't understand it, just like I didn't. I guess anything subjective, has to fall under the faith category. Even if what I feel is as real as bumping into a door, or sticking your finger in an electric socket.You try to simplify things to much, and a relationship with God, is anything but simple. Does data prove anything, other than the data itself? As it was. So back to the mother love thing, does that mean they don't exist.
I call BS on you.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Of course it does. If you were carbon dating something from the revolutionary war, it is helpful to know when it started.