How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

If your talking about the meteor that we think is from Mars, I think that evidence is about as highly subjective as all religions. I see no difference in the two. It is reasonable because we exist here. The same reason to wonder if a God exists or not. It's not science, it's creation science. I don't know if your wrong or right, I really don't focus too much of my efforts on it. I am as guilty as they are because I believe there is a God, based on my own personal subjective evidence. Then I am like you because I would love to prove it. In other words, I am seeking God, even though I feel I know Him.
There are many unanswered questions, and when regular science starts to rebuke some of what I believe it, then I need to find out if science is right or not. I think that is why creation science was formed (or at least I hope that is why). But if creation science was only formed to protect a religion, and not truely to seek if we were created or not, then it is all BS.
But still any facts that they may uncover, could still be used in a more productive way.
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. Shit you found me out, how did you do that?

I have explored the if, by sifting through much on these forums. I have learned enough to realize that it may as well be BS.In theory, the idea of creation science sounds like a good idea to me. After all I believe in God, and I feel something from God, that is enough for me to start exploring if God really did create us. That is what I hope would have sparked a creation science movement. If it was only to protect a religion, then I am very against it, as I am against most religions, even though I am involved in one. I exploit my religion(in a good way), so that I can carry out what I think God wants me to do, where as creation science might be exploiting people to carry out there religion. A big mistake IMO, and will only hurt religion in the long run.Actually, if your going to call something "creation science" you better be prepared if you found out we were created, but not by God.
So I find the label "creation science" inappropiate, unles they are unbiasly trying to find out if we were created, regardless of who did the creating. But I am pretty sure I remember reading that they are driven by the God only idea.I need not explore it more, unless I have to vote on it. I don't really voice my opinion, because I don't have all the answers on it.
I am not for it, or against it at this point. I have no way of proving or disproving many of the things I have learned from "creation scientists" on TV and web-sites. Some things I have read here have been sort of disproved, but again, I am not qualified to get to deep into it.I remain curious, because as I said, I do believe in God, and it is more than just faith for me. Somehow, if God exists, it has to make sense. Maybe we were created to evolve, whatever...