How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

Do you understand the difference between accuracy and precision?Suppose you're framing a wall. Which is more important - to have all the studs exactly the right length? Or to have all the studs exactly the same length?If one is an inch too long, there's going to be a problem - but if all of them are a sixteenth of an inch too short, no problem."Objectivity" in science has more to do with everybody getting the same result than with anybody getting the "right" result.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You can call it what you want. But keep in mind that you are bordering on personally insulting me, which is against forum rules.Many of the things, if not all of them that have happened to me, are things that Jesus talks about, so they are not unlikely. Even though I have read about these things for years, I did not fully understand them, until they happened to me. Everything is subjective. It most certainly is valid, especially if God exists, and He does talk to me.
Your mother loves you, love is subjective, is her love not valid now? The odds the sun will rise tomorrow
The odds life will end tomorrow
The odds Jupiter will hit Saturn. No, inother words, the odds are great, but don't expect me to give you an exact number. I can't calculate that.
Remember, I am not a big fan of odds anyway.
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?
It's all how you look at things. My faith is subjective, I already sated that.
But to me it may not be subjective, to you it is.You love your mother, that is subjective, but not to you. Love exists right? How can you prove it?It's word games nator, and too many people around here like to play games with the words, and make things appear to be what they aren't. People pretend to be all logical, and objective, when this just isn't the case. Everything is relevant to you, and therefor subjective.All the objectiveness in the world will not be able to explain if Jesus suddenly appeared in the clouds tonight, and this, well guys this is it, haha.I am a bit sick of it. The whole rational thought process to explain away God. It's crap. Then when I turn around thier own thought processes on to them, suddenly those thoughts are not valid?Take a look at yourself, all the data in the world, cannot keep you from wondering if there is a God or not, and if there is, just what is He like?
Your agnostic, and that is subjective, is it not? Ot is it objective? Of course they were. How dare you pretend to understand what I've been through. You don't even know me. 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. 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. No, I don't want to say that, you do.

Yea, I understand how it works, and I don't have a problem with it. I am just showing another view, a perfectly valid one, that one should keep in mind, to keep things real.Are all results in science objective ringo?

Yes. "Objective" meaning that it doesn't matter who takes the measurement.A Sikh or a Satanist or somebody with any other "world view" has to be able to get the same result or it isn't a valid scientific result.That's why you're wrong when you claim that data is subjective. It doesn't matter who the subject is. It only matters what the object is.Edited by Ringo, : Spelling and conjugation.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So then what happens ten years later when you get a different result using a different method?

First, the person getting the different result has to explain why the result is different - i.e. why the new result is better than the old result, why the old method was flawed, etc.Then, other people have to replicate the new result before it can be accepted as valid.The result is not subjective because it doesn't matter who does the experiment. The result can be altered by the method but not by the experimenter's beliefs.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No, it is objective because no matter where you go and no matter who you ask, 2+2 is always going to be 4. Again, something is subjective only if it varies from place to place and from person to person. If I go to some tribe somewhere in africa and ask the people there if there are 5 fingers on my hand and I show them my hand, they are still going to say yes just the same as if I go to the pope in italy and ask the same question. Is this the reason why you think gay people are less than people? By the way, there's one example right there. My wife and I = 2 people no matter how you look at it. 11 in a base 3 system is equal to 4 in a base 10 system. What part of it don't you get?Again, it is the language that changes, not the thing that the language is representing. The word car is different than the word voiture, but both words refer to the same thing. The object that we call a car and the french call a voiture is the same object. The number that is represented by "4" in a base 10 system is the same number that is represented by "11" in a base 3 system. That is what we are talking about, not the specific language that is used to represent it. No, it is objective because even if you go the pope and asks him if 2+2=4, he's going to say yes. You can even go back in time and ask a medieval person if 2+2=4 and he's going to say yes. If you go to france and you ask a person if deux + deux = quatre, he's going to say oui. Different languages that refer to the same thing. That is objectivity.Now, it is subjective only if a french person disagrees with you that deux + deux = quatre. If in english two + two = four but in french deux + deux = trois, then it is subjective. But clearly, if you go to anywhere in the world, and if you use any language in the world, it's still going to be the same thing. Well, perhaps you'd like to ask a moderator for his opinion on this? My temptation to ask for moderator intervention isn't to confirm what I've said about the subject. It's about you playing your game again. What possibility? That 2+2=5 in your lalaland universe?You seem to have trouble understanding the concept of a thing and the language that is used to represent it.Take music, for example, since I'm a sort of musician who happens to have perfect pitch. When I think of a note or when I play improv jazz, I don't actually think of A, B, or C. I actually think of the pitches that I am going to play. For a Bb instrument, a D is the same thing as a C on a piano. If I switch to my A clarinet, the same pitch is called Eb. Different representations for the same thing. Now, if I fly to germany and play a C on the piano and then play a D on my Bb clarinet (given that both are in tune with each other), a german would agree that the two pitches are the same. If I fly to Russia and do the same thing, the russian will agree that they're both the same.In other words, the pitch that is represented by the letter C on a piano and the pitch that is represented by the letter D on a clarinet are the same thing.In the same way, 2+2=4 no matter which language you use or who you ask. This is why it is objective.

I didn't expect you to admit that the new result was subjective, I was pointing towards the old result.

Neither the new result nor the old result is subjective if they were obtained objectively.Don't confuse "objective" with "absolute". That's where precision vs accuracy comes in.An objective result is precise - i.e. all of the measurements agree. If better equipment makes more precise measurements available, that doesn't make the less precise measurements less objective.The result doesn't have to be highly accurate - i.e. it doesn't have to be absolute. It only has to be replicable to be objective.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

???
I just gave you a bunch of links that showed how it can be different, so your wrong.
2+2=4 is subjective, it is an abstract thought, or concept, that originates from within the human mind. 2+2=4 is subjective to the objects we are adding. You... are an ass. I don't know, your starting to seem like half person to me. NSS, the point is that the #4 doesn't actually exist. But if you go to one of the web-sites I provided, and I am sure there are many many more, you will see that not all people feel that 2+2=4.If I take two of my shits, and two of your shits, and add them together, you get 1 big pile of shit. By you acusing me of playing a game, when I clearly backed up what I am saying with links, then you are the one in need of moderation......again.Your close mindedness does not make me in need of moderation. Well it's scary to think that we have something in common. I play jazz (some) too. And there is no such thing as perfect pitch. You can come really really close though. Nope, it is subjective to what you are adding, that's why I asked you 2+2=4 what?

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

"Subjective" applies to the people doing the measurement, not to the equipment they use.If different people using the same equipment get the same result, the result is objective. If different people using different equipment get the same result, the result is still objective.If different people using the same equipment get different results, the results are subjective. And if different people using different equipment get different results, the results are subjective. You still don't seem to be understanding the difference between accuracy and precision. Exactness (accuracy) is irrelevant.If the results are precise - i.e. if everybody gets the same result - they are objective.(This is all very basic stuff, but if you really don't understand it, we should take it somewhere where it's on topic.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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?

riVeRrat The accuracy of the cut has no bearing on the question posed which is
stated thus The number of sides of a cube are not dependent on the accuracy of the cut itself. Since the cube must have 6 sides then the number of cuts cannot be reduced and this is an objective result independent of a persons desire otherwise.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.