How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

quote:

---

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

---

No, it doesn't.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it is not a representation of what happened to you, nor was it meant to be.It is, however, a very close representation of the construction of the argument you used to describe what happened to you.I just replaced you with a person claiming they were abducted by aliens. The rest is exactly the same as the argument you put forth.Now, pay attention. I don't care what your experiences were.I only care about your attempt to make up a bogus statistic and then claim that the "odds" of all of the things that happened to you were so great that it is meaningful in any objective sense. In other words, meaningful to anybody else but you.What other reason would you bring it up, and try to attach numbers to your claim, other than you are trying to impress others by how amazing it all was and how it means that "something is going on"?

quote:

---

Your (sic) 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.

---

Again, I am making no comments whatsoever about the actual experiences. I am sure they were very amazing and complicated.What I take issue with is the construction of the argument you used.

quote:

---

I just saw that movie, funny.

---

Is this supposed to be argumentation?What is the difference between someone telling me that God speaks to them or someone telling me that aliens talk to them?Both are anecdotal, unverified reports, aren't they?

quote:

---

Your mother loves you, love is subjective, is her love not valid now?

---

quote:

---

Of course it makes no sense, because it proves your point wrong.

---

OK, rat, so explain to me how the above comment about my mother's love "proves" that your making up bogus statistics regarding your anecdotal evidence is actually good, hard, reliable scientific data? Oh really? Your experiences were marked by the gathering of "objectively-gathered data"?Great! Can you post the spreadsheets with the raw data along with the crunched analysis in another thread? Did you use MatLab to do the analysis or some other stats software? What particular types of analysis did you use and what were the error bars like? Who did you use as a control group? Did you get mostly good, clean data or was there a lot of nouise to sift through? Who else was involved in this data-gathering?Wait, you DO understand that this is what "objectively-gathered data" looks like, don't you?Just telling one's stories about what amazing things happened to them don't involve anything like the above, does it?

quote:

---

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.

---

Many people have claimed to have encounters with Space Aliens, including ones that do not even know about it.
That makes it more than an anecdote. [quote]Even if it is still subjective, it is an evidence, and part of the equation.[/quiote]So, that must mean that you consider the stories that people tell of having encounters with Space Aliens of the same caliber of evidence as your encounters with the Holy Spirit, correct?Glad we can finally agree on something.

quote:

---

I cannot prove God to you, I have stated that, no one can. It's not about proving anything.

---

Then why did you try to prove it by attempting to inserti some kind of statistical odds into your impressions of how amazing it was that these things all happened to you?You SAY that you just believe on faith, but you also constantly try to say that it was actual evidence in the physical world that convinced you.In this very thread and post, in fact, you argue how your experiences should be considered on the same level as real, objectively gathered data. Now you do a complete 180 and now claim that "you aren't about proving anything."Come off it, rat. You want it both ways. That is abundantly clear.

quote:

---

When did I say that they were independently verified?
You made that up.

---

When you called them data, rat. That's when. When you denied that they were anecdotal. If they are "more" than anecdotal, that means they are "data". And for something to be considered "data", it has to be independently verifiable. No, that is completely wrong.Subjective things, by definition, are not verifiable.

quote:

---

Then it's not an anecdote, end of conversation.

---

Sure it is, rat.All of it is anecdote, unless you're going to whip out those spreadsheets I mentioned above.Does that mean that if I can find several people who notice a big change in someone who claims to have been abducted by Space Aliens, does that mean that it is evidence that Space Aliens really did abduct this person?Again, The plural of "testimonial" is not "data".Perhaps your problem is that you are misunderstanding how odds work.Let's revisit the bit in my last message:You wrote:

quote:

---

The odds of winning the lotto can be a million to one, but if I win it on my first try, then those weren't my odds were they?

---

When you answer the coin toss question correctly, you will understand your error WRT the lottery odds.

From your 2+2=5 wiki link:

Rat, not a single thing in this response to me was a serious attempt at a response to any of the points I raised.In fact, pretty much the entire thing was nothing more than a contentless, smart-assed "I know you are but what am I?".I guess, when you have no argument, or don't even understand what the other side's argument, you have to resort to this sort of thing. I can see that you've given up, as can everybody else.I'm happy with my posts in this thread, so I guess we can let the readers decide who argued their position better.

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.

quote:

---

What is the difference between teaching about Creation, as a possibility, and life on other planets?

---

Well, we have evidence of life on one planet, but we don't have any evidence of any gods at all.It is reasonable, therefore, to think about life on other planets, since there ARE other planets.In any case, one could talk about the supernatural in science class in the section on pseudoscience and unscientific claims.

quote:

---

Of course it (Creation Science) is part of science nator.

---

No, it isn't.

quote:

---

Any data can be part of science.

---

Science is not merely a big pile of facts, rat.Science, first and foremost, is a method.I will repeat what I wrote previously: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.If you don't use the method, then it isn't science. Period.There is no wiggle room here.

quote:

---

I am not an expert on it, but I would hope that they are at least in search of something genuine.

---

One would hope that too. I don't know if they are or aren't.The point is, the way they are searching is not scientific. Not even close.So, it isn't science.

quote:

---

Just like spending all your efforts in search of a cure for cancer.

---

Or spending all of your efforts to make a free energy machine.

quote:

---

If anything, science is methodological naturalism.

---

Right.Isn't that what I said?

quote:

---

So if creation science teams are doing archeology in Israel for instance, even though their conclusions may be wrong, the data they collect can still be valid.

---

'Valid' as science?Not if they fail to collect the data in a scientific manner, nor if they fail to allow the evidence, rather than their preferred outcome, to inform their conclusions, nor if they mysteriously 'misplace' the artifacts they say prove this or that part of the Bible as true, nor if they say they have such artifacts but do not allow anybody else but believers to examine them.The so-called 'Biblical Archaeology' that I've seen has been, at best, pseudoscientific religious field trips where ignorant and deluded people see mountains where there aren't even molehills. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders