How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

quote:

---

Two each of every species in Australia (and no where else)

---

Er...except for the Oppossum in North America?

quote:

---

Looks like my ex-wife on a good day.

---

Being married to you must have been hard on her, poor dear.

quote:

---

How did you know that? You know her?

---

Well, if she was a looker, your previous insult to her implied, you wouldn't be her ex.I mean, you didn't marry her when she looked like that, right? What other conclusion could there be but being married to you made her lose her looks?

quote:

---

She lies. Poor dear.

---

Don't have any idea if she does or not.But I know that you are the type of person to insult their ex wife to strangers when she's not here to defend herself.Tacky, very tacky.

quote:

---

She's really a marsupial.

---

So...you married a marsupial?Whyever did you do that?

That a deer can swim 600 feet across the Arthur Kill is not surprising.That a Platapus or a Koala or a Kangaroo could swim many thousands of miles to Australia is a different matter altogether.

quote:

---

Isn't that basically what I said?

---

You also said,

quote:

---

The point is, if it is possible, it can happen. You, or every scientist in the world just may have not thought of a way yet.

---

Given the topic, it is not unreasonable to think that you are trying to say that because deer swam 600 feet across the Arthur Kill, that many animals swam across vast open sea to their final locations after the flood.Considering everyone else's responses to you, I think that's what we all thought you meant.

quote:

---

I am not convinced that they evolved that way, or were just designed to do become that.

---

Why couldn't they evolve that way?Is there any evidence whatsoever that they were "designed to become that"?

quote:

---

Anyone think that after a flood, that many things would be floating around. Why Here in my lake, we have floating islands, that shift, and sometimes break free, and float the distance of the lake. These islands have a life of there own, and if one was big enough, could probably support the life of a deer for a year, no doubt.

---

Yes, possibly, on lovely, calm lake waters. However, the 40 days and nights of torrential rains all over the whole earth would have beat such delicate islands to death. Also, the waves would finish off anything left.

quote:

---

Again, my point is anything is possible.

---

It's what is probable that must be considered, not only what is "possible".

quote:

---

There have been huge changes in my life, both pyhsical and mental, and maybe all of them can be explained away individually, but when you add them all together, the odds of them all happening become like the number .99999999999 to infinity, eventually it becomes 1.

---

Nope.The odds of that particular sperm and that particular egg coming together and forming you or me or anybody else on the planet are also incredible.The odds that this has happened billion upon billions of times are truly staggering.But the odds of something happening, rather than any specific thing, are very, very good.The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Show me one thing that is not subjective.

---

Irrelevant.The point is, unlikely things happen constantly, rat.Every single day.Many times, each and every day, in fact.Just because a bunch of unlikely things happened to you over time doesn't mean jack from an evidence point of view.They are just anecdotes, and have no power whatsoever as evidence, since you are the sole person who is experiencing the so-called phenomena, recording/noting the incidents, and interpreting and determining the meaning of those phenomena after the fact.They clearly are meaningful to you from a faith satndpoint, and that's fine, but they are completely worthless as data.You cannot set yourself up as the experimenter, subject, and evaluator and expect to get results that are rational or useful as evidence.The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".

---

'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

quote:

---

Grains energy value compared to huge volumes of hay reduced the size needed for energy storage

---

Yeah.Were there horses on the ark? And cattle? And other herbivores that eat grass as their main diet?Do you know what feeding horses and cows a grain-only, or grain-heavy diet does to them?

quote:

---

The point is, we are not talking about unlikely things.

---

Yes we are. You were the one to bring up the liklihood of things, back in message 97:

quote:

---

There have been huge changes in my life, both pyhsical and mental, and maybe all of them can be explained away individually, but when you add them all together, the odds of them all happening become like the number .99999999999 to infinity, eventually it becomes 1.

---

quote:

---

Everything is evidence of something, to deny it is illogical, and purely an emotional repsonse from someone playing the logical card.

---

The anecdotes you can provide, even if you "add them all together", are not data.You have tried to make them into data. Just read your words above.You are trying to derive some kind of statistical probability from your combined anecdotes.You make up some numbers that bear no relation to any sort of valid experimentation or data-gathering method. In other words, you are talking out of your ass with those numbers. But you want to use those "odds" you made up to say that "stuff happened to me that is unlikely, and that shows that 'something is going on'."

quote:

---

And the funny thing, is I never said it was.

---

You said exactly that when you wrote:

quote:

---

There have been huge changes in my life, both pyhsical and mental, and maybe all of them can be explained away individually, but when you add them all together, the odds of them all happening become like the number .99999999999 to infinity, eventually it becomes 1.

---

quote:

---

What I mean is that, my experiences are not unlikely, since they parralell many of the experiences in the bible.

---

I call bullshit.Why are you only bringing up the "Bible parallel" stuff now? And how does that make any sense, anyway?I strongly suspect that you are trying to weasel out of admitting that you were wrong, and that you most certainly DID fully intend to say that "a bunch of things happened to you that were unlikely, and therefore 'something is going on'".

quote:

---

Plus, you are the one who claims my experiences are anecdotes, they are not. So this conversation can end right here.
Each one of my experiences are data.

---

Data isn't subjective, rat.

quote:

---

Then I will paraphrase you. Every morning the sun rises. Does this mean it will rise tomorrow?

---

Irrelevant and, frankly, nonsensical.I will repeat.Adding all of your subjective experiences together and making up a bogus statistic to attempt to show that the odds all of these things happening to you are unlikely is not valid.

quote:

---

Many times in science, when the odds of something happening become so great, it becomes data.

---

Name three times that this has happened in science.(I don't even know what you are talking about, so this should be interesting)

quote:

---

I don't know the odds, but they are great, great enough for me to make such a huge decision in my life, and take a step of faith.

---

LOL!!!!In other words, you said "I don't know the odds, but I DO know the odds!"Oh-kaaay...Nobody is saying that you can't, or shouldn't have, taken that "step of faith".It is just pure bull, though, for you to then try to show that the "odds" of all of your experiences is meaningful in an objective, mathematical sense.What makes your experiences anectotal is that they were not observed or collected in a manner that guards against bias. You are the sole experiencer, recorder, and interpreter of these experiences. That makes them anecdotes, not data, because nobody else can independently verify any of it.

quote:

---

What they add up to, is highly subjective. That is all I ever claimed.

---

No. You claimed that they added up to ".999999999, which equals 1".In other words, you want to say that a whole lot of nothing can add up to something.Sorry, it can't.

quote:

---

Everything is subjective.

---

No, it isn't rat, as the engineer has explained to you.I wrote:

quote:

---

It most certainly is valid,

---

So, does that mean when sombody tells a story about how they were abducted by space aliens, and they make up a bogus statistic to make the odds of that happening look unlikely, we should believe them?That's what you just said.

quote:

---

especially if God exists, and He does talk to me.

---

Especially if aliens exist, and they beam radio signals directly into my that person's brain when they aren't wearing their tinfoil hat.

quote:

---

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

---

WTF are you babbling about now? This makes no sense. You gave "examples" when I asked:

quote:

---

The odds the sun will rise tomorrow
The odds life will end tomorrow
The odds Jupiter will hit Saturn.

---

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about."Odds" are simply a statistical ratio. "Great odds" indicate a great liklihood of something happening based upon objectively-gathered data."Data" are objectively-gathered facts.I have no idea how the three things you listed above relate in the least.

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?

---

Er, yes, those are precisely your odds.What are your odds of getting "heads" in a coin toss the first time you do it?What about the second time? The 10th time? The millionth time?

quote:

---

The whole rational thought process to explain away God.

---

You are the one trying to use "rational thought" in order to prove god, rat.That's what you are doing when you bring up "odds".

quote:

---

Of course they were.

---

Nice quote mine, there o'l ratty boy. What, did you think I'd forget what I wrote and not notice that you chopped off the most important point in that paragraph?The entire explanation I wrote was: See, it's the independently verified thing that makes your experiences anecdotal.

quote:

---

How dare you pretend to understand what I've been through. You don't even know me.

---

Irrelevant. I don't claim to understand anything about you.But your experiences are anecdotes and not data, because You are the sole experiencer, recorder, and interpreter of these experiences. That makes them anecdotes, not data, because nobody else can independently verify any of it.

quote:

---

If you had to deal with me in real life, there is no doubt in my mind that we would get along wonderfully, and if you knew me before, and then after, your own bias observations would be part of my experiences.

---

That's not data for God.That's just observations of people that you changed, not evidence of the source of that change.

quote:

---

Not one, but tens of people are my witnesses, and not because I asked them. There was an obvious pysichal and mental change that went on. And I ain't braggin about it, I am just amazed by it. You on the other hand, because you weren't part of it, or haven't maybe witnessed it happening in others, think I am just crazy. I used to think like you.

---

The plural of "testimonial" is not "data".

quote:

---

Nope, it is subjective to what you are adding, that's why I asked you 2+2=4 what?

---

Widgets.2 widgets + 2 widgets always = 4 widgets.How can replacing "widgets" with any other thing change the total?