How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

Where?

In no particular order:Isaiah 40:22
Jeremiah 16:19
Mathew 4:8
Isaiah 11:12
Job 38:13
Revelation 7:1Ok, so we could also say that these were all figures of speech. But I must wonder, if this book is really the true word of god, wouldn't you at least expect a word or two that says the earth was more sphere-like than a flat object?

I only quoted 2+2=4 from iceage because I wanted to limit our conversation to just one thing.Since you claimed that 2+2=4 is not objective, can you perhaps give us an example of when 2+2 is not 4?BTW, nice dodge.

riVeRrat Allow me to refer you to Martin Gardner's Buzz saw so that you can see a piece of objective evidence in action.If you can see a way that allows for another answer by all means present it. That way we can establish that it is indeed subjective.http://explorepdx.com/buzsaw.html

The verse you gave indicates the earth was a circle, and not a square with corners.Isaiah 40:22
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.Then in this verse, you seem to think because they use the term "ends of the earth" means that it is flat? I don't think so. Ends of the earth is a excellent term to describe "the whole earth."Jeremiah 16:1919 O LORD, my strength and my fortress,
my refuge in time of distress,
to you the nations will come
from the ends of the earth and say,
"Our fathers possessed nothing but false gods,
worthless idols that did them no good.Then in this verse, it is quite obvious that from any mountain you cannot see all the kingdoms of the world, and they knew that. So it was just an expression, or he could have just been showing Jesus in a vision, or it could have been a mountain from another realm or demension.Matthew 4:8
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.Then in this verse, the four quarters of the earth does not make it flat or square. Especially since in the first verse, the earth was a circle.Isaiah 11:1212 He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.This verse again, is just an expression. No one would actually grab the earth.Job 38:1313 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?Then in the last verse, in which corner of the circle?Revelation 7
144,000 Sealed
1After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.Obviously an expression.The sad thing is that by using all these verses to explain your theory of the world being flat, you totally missed the morals, and values of these verses.The bible contains the word of God, which is the word of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, written by MEN. Men thought the world was flat back then, so I still don't see one could use this aa an excuse to 1. not believe in God, 2. say that the bible does not contain the word of God.God always meets us at the place we are at.
When God showed Himself to people when they were not ready, they just died in His presence.
Would you throw your dog off a cliff to teach him to fly?
Neither would God tell us anything more than just what we needed to know at that point. He is living today, and still does the same thing.Knowing God, doesn't make you an instant genius, or another Jesus. It just opens the door to a relationship with Him, thats all. The bible makes you aware of this, from the writings of expreiences with people.It doesn't matter how the animals got to islands after the flood, or if it even really happened. They are there now, and that is what counts. I would be more concerned with asking God, how do we treat these animals, and take care of them? How do we love?

This is no dodge son, this is something I learned here in EVC from an atheists. Maybe now you'll respect it.Question, 1. if something doesn't exist, is it objective?Question 2. 2+2 what? = 4 what?2+2 is just numbers that we invented with our subjective minds to represent something, they don't acutally exist.And if that is not enough for ya, try reading here:
when does 2+2 not equal 4?Here ya go again:
"2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2" is a reminder about the way estimation errors compound in numerical calculations. One example is when rounding is directly involved: 2.4 is rounded down to 2 ("a large value of 2"), while 2.4 + 2.4 (which is equal to 4.8) is rounded up to 5.Another:
No, not always
2+2 will only equal four in a base ten system. If you used another numerical system, such as a base 3, it would equal an entirely different number. It also depends on what you are adding. Two drops of water plus two other drops of water will equal one singlet of water. Two atoms of hydrogen plus two atoms of oxygen will yield one molecule of hydrogen peroxide, and the like.I think the real kicker is that you cannot accurately measure anything in the universe, since everything is moving, so you will never even be able to say something, is exactly 2.Edited by riVeRraT, : fixed link

So you accept that your idea of God is subjective? You can't have it both ways! Numbers are an abstract means of measurement with their own inherent logic. 2+2=4 is objectively true.Furthermore, your base-ten and rounding arguments are both strawmen. The base-ten system just a positional system whilst no one rounding off a calculation of 2.4+2.4 will ever "round it off" to 2+2=5!In any case the old creationist "what is reality anyway?" diversionary tactic is ultimately pointless, for even if our world is an illusion, it remains our reality!Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Besides the fact that you responded to the wrong post - mine was simply a question as to which YEC author came up with the idea of pelletized, dehydrated grain (I'm pretty sure now that I think about it that it was Woodmorappe) - your "response" yields a whole raft of new questions.Are you aware of the humidity problem on all ships, let alone wooden ones? It has nothing to do with calking/pitch - which has to be renewed periodically regardless of how well applied. The very air is saturated. Modern ships have substantial mechanical dehydrators to insure their cargo holds are relatively humidity-free. No matter how well "pitched" the Ark was, there was no possible way to reduce the moisture content of the air itself. Now, picture a bunch of pitch-coated bins filled with highly absorbant grain on a wooden ship in the midst of the mother-of-all-storms. What do you figure the saturated air will do? Can you say "mold heaven"? Ergot is just one of the problems...Another issue is simply one of volume: do you have any conception of the amount of grain (and not all herbivores can digest grain very well - few of the browsers, for instance, have the appropriate gut fermentation capability) required for even a very small number of large herbivores? For a year (or more, if all those forests, savannahs, etc, had to be replanted by hand)?Finally, as nator mentioned, horses and others have a really hard time surviving for more than a few days on grain alone. Ever heard of "bloat"?

Your little game of dodging the question is getting tiring.Let's look at the link you gave. There isn't a what in there. The number "2" is a completely abstract concept that helps us keep track physical objects. The actually physical existence of the number 2 isn't in question here. The question is whether the abstract concept of 2+2 will ever be anything but 4?

quote:

---

"2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2" is a reminder about the way estimation errors compound in numerical calculations. One example is when rounding is directly involved: 2.4 is rounded down to 2 ("a large value of 2"), while 2.4 + 2.4 (which is equal to 4.8) is rounded up to 5.

---

What does that have to do with what we are talking about? The question is 2+2 not 2.4+2.4. Do you even know what a base ten system is? Or base 2? Or base 3? 2+2 will always be 4 no matter what system you use. Now, the symbolic representation of the number changes, just like the word car in english changes to the word voiture in french, but both words refer to the same thing.For example, in a base 3, you'd have 0,1,2,10,11,12,20, etc. 10, in this case, is the same thing as 4 in a base ten system. It doesn't matter what symbol I use to represent these numbers. Say I'm going to use the following for a base 3: = 0
= 1
‘ = 2‘ + ‘ will always be . If I then decide to represent this number in base ten, it will be 4 instead. If I want to represent this number in base 2, it will be 100. If I want to represent this number in english, it will be four. If I want to represent this number in french, it will be quatre. If I want to represent this number in spanish, it will be cuatro. Whatever language or system I use to represent this number, it will always be the same thing. A car is a car no matter if you call it a car or voiture. And what does that have to do with what we are talking about? We are talking about the mathematical abstract concept of 2+2.Again, your little game is getting tiring. I'm getting tempted to ask for moderator intervention.Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

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.

---

Absolutely!
I have no way of showing God, other than to love you, and we all know love is subjective.
My idea of what God is, is only relevant to me.If God is objective, I have no way of proving it. objectively true? LOL. Your stretching it dude.
Did you read any of the links I provided?
Is the term objectively true even valid?
As apposed to subjectively true?Inherent logic? So it's an idea then, which by default is subjective, thank you for proving my case. Just like .999999-- to infinity equals 1. As far as I was concerned, the idea of what is reality anyway, was an athiestic one. Thats where I learned it from, right here on EVC. It is a completely logical arguement, unless of course it makes you wrong, right?Plus I am not deabating reality, I am only calling it subjective.People who don't believe in God, claim to be logical and purely dealing with the objective, but that is just not true. We all view the world and reality through our subjective minds. What appears objective today, may not be tomorrow.

Then a concept is subjective, always.
Right now, the thinking is that there is no such thing as "2". If the number 2 is not representing anything, then it is just merely a concept, therefor subjective by nature. Because nothing can ever be exactly "2" so you are always rounding off. That wasn't my idea, I grabbed it off the web somewhere.
In a 3 based counting system, 2+2=11.
If the symbloic representation of a number can change, then that furthers my point, that it is indeed subjective.In other words, you should be saying to yourself, 2+2=4 in my mind.
SO in other words, it is subjective. And all concepts are subjective. For what? so he can tell you that your wrong?I'm taking my ball, and I'm going home.This is not a Christian concept, or is it my personal concept. It is a scientific one. Maybe you should take some time out to study it, and try to understand it, then be open to the possibility, like a real scientist would.

What I mean is that, my experiences are not unlikely, since they parralell many of the experiences in the bible. Then I will paraphrase you. Every morning the sun rises. Does this mean it will rise tomorrow?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. What they add up to, is highly subjective. That is all I ever claimed.Many times in science, when the odds of something happening become so great, it becomes data. 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.This is not to be belittled by your antics. This is just nit picking, I won't carry this one on any further.

Good link, and a very good attempt at trying to prove that something is objective. But it all relys on measurement, which can never be 100% acurrate.Plus, there is more than one way to perform the 6 cuts.Plus, if you start with a cube that is 3 inches, and make a cut, you lose the width of the blade in the cut, and will wind up with pieces less than one inch. Another poorly written attempt.Don't get me wrong, I happen to think that math can be very "objective" but it is still viewed through our subjective minds, and from our own demension. If I where to be able to enter the fourth demension, maybe I could make it in one cut. This is a possibility for sure.I don't think that math alone will ever explain the flood, or if God exists or not.

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.