How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

Oh high and mighty one - I think you have the meanings of accuracy and precision turned around, or at least muddled.From Accuracy and precision - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

In the fields of science, engineering, industry and statistics, accuracy is the degree of conformity of a measured or calculated quantity to its actual (true) value. Accuracy is closely related to precision, also called reproducibility or repeatability, the degree to which further measurements or calculations will show the same or similar results.

​

The results of calculations or a measurement can be accurate but not precise; precise but not accurate; neither; or both. A result is called valid if it is both accurate and precise.

---

Let the truth be equal to 4.3587.If you say the correct value is 4, then you are being accurate but not very precise.If you say the correct value is 3.25792317, then you are being very precise but also are being very inaccurate.One can reproduce very precise results that are also very inaccurate, if you have some sort of consistent error somewhere (say your ruler starts from 1 rather than from 0).Please also see the "target analogy" at the above cited.Now, what does this have to do with "How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?"? New topic time? OK, we have an "off-topic" agreement.Or something like that.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

riVeRraT gave an example of deer returning to Staten Island. Schraf pointed out that that anecdote doesn't constitute scientific data. riVeRraT replied that "everything is subjective" and I have been trying to point out the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.That's how we got here - not saying we "should" be here. I think you and Wikipedia and I are all saying essentially the same thing - I'm just saying it more clearly.

---

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

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

I never said it didn't.What I said, and I will repeat myself, is that if you use a buz-saw to cut a 3 inch block, 3 times, you will not end up with 1 inch sides. That is why I commented that the puzzle has a flaw.That doesn't mean that I do not understand the concept of the puzzle or the objectiveness of it.

I disagree, but will be willing to accept another answer.
But what you just said is what I have been saying all along. Subjective applies to the people doing the experiment. Since we view everything in the world through our minds, then most everything has a flare of subjectiveness to it.My original quote was "show me one thing that is not subjective."I did not say that objectiveness doesn't exist, by definition.Plus it is most certainly subjective to the equipment being used. If a piece of equipment can only measure things to a 1/6th of an inch in accuracy, then that is the ebest we can do with that particular piece of equipment. Which may not be good enough to get an objective results. You wouldn't be able to produce any objective results using that equipment in quantum mechanics. So the test is indeed subjective to the equipment being used.Which is different from absolute as you stated. So what good is objectiveness if it could be wrong?
That is why I am saying that objective results are subjective to how we view things, and how we figure things out.

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.Your 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. I just saw that movie, funny. Of course it makes no sense, because it proves your point wrong. You've just described a good portion of my experiences.
The rest are purely subjective (to me) although others have experiences the same thing. 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. Even if it is still subjective, it is an evidence, and part of the equation. I cannot prove God to you, I have stated that, no one can. It's not about proving anything.Finding God for yourself, is not science nator, maybe when you stop looking for Him that way, you'll find Him. When did I say that they were independently verified?
You made that up.
A portion of them were, but those are the subjective portions. Then it's not an anecdote, end of conversation.
Good night, this is way off-topic.

Once again, you're confusing "objective" with "exact". It's the possibility of being wrong that makes it objective. Each subjective person believes he is right. It is only when his results are compared to other people's results that an objective result can be compiled. No they are not. The whole idea of objectivity is to eliminate the differences in how we view things and figure things out.

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

No, it doesn't.

Good, then the next time a few drops of water combine together, and fall off a roof, and hit you in the nose, don't say, I felt a drop of water. Drop (liquid) - Wikipedia2+2=5
2 + 2 = 5 - Wikipedia

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:

Yes, nator, I am well aware of that. I posted it in all fairness. But your reply wasn't fair, because you only picked what applied to your side of the debate from that page.Things are not always black and white nator, I keep telling you that.
There is no me vs you, I look at it as if we were in this thing called life together, even if we disagree much. Disagreeing is healthy IMO.

Your right, I don't exist, and none of this happened. As a matter of fact the men in the clean white suits are waiting outside my door, and they are coming to take me away ah ha!I'll be the one with the pink carnation, and I will be the one twittling my thumbs and toes. Your alive, so obviously somethings going on. Thats so obvious by your lack of replies. Love is subjective, yet it objectively exists. You want to discount all my experiences solely based on their objectiveness, which is a mistake in my subjective opinion. When you notice a change in them, and can feel God's love through them. I'm not saying this is me, because it is difficult at best to show you God's love through an internet forum, but I do take a lot of my time to talk to you, and trust me, my time is quite valuable. Not when I look up the definition of anecdotal. It just doesn't quite fit. Um, no, and that is not necessary for it to be data. You don't need matLab to understand that 2+2=4 My life, before and after. It was all exactly the same, funny uh? Everyone who knows me. If I was trying to troubleshoot a heating system or something, yes, but we are talking about RL here. My life is not an experiment, but that doesn't exclude it from objective data, I am alive you know.It's the conclusion that is subjective, with good odds. That doesn't make them lies, or not data. They did happen.
But if you want to believe they didn't, or if your calling me a liar, them too bad. Thats right. But it doesn't mean that there are aliens. It just means that it is not anecdotes, like you claim. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. Yes, to them it may be real. The truth of the experience may be different. Many people have tried to explain the whole alien abduction thing. Maybe one day it will be figured out, just like God. Because it is amazing nator.
My wish is that it would happen to you, I would love to see you explain it, and run into the same debate with someone else.Let me remind you again, I do not discount that it is not real, that is why I constantly test it everyday, as unbiased as I can possibly be (given my own mind).Would you like to set up some tests? They should be in accordance with what Jesus promised us. I have to say faith, nator, because you wouldn't understand it, just like I didn't. I guess anything subjective, has to fall under the faith category. Even if what I feel is as real as bumping into a door, or sticking your finger in an electric socket.You try to simplify things to much, and a relationship with God, is anything but simple. Does data prove anything, other than the data itself? As it was. So back to the mother love thing, does that mean they don't exist.
I call BS on you.

No, but some things are.In unary:11+11 does not equal 11111In binary:10 + 10 does not equal 101In trinary:2+2 does not equal 12and so on...

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.