Mass extincitons and God's goodness

[PhilVaz]

wife << I have never heard a scientist say or even write that science doesn’t prove anything. Then science would be nothing more than hot air. Science does prove things. What is gravity? Why do plants have green leaves? >>

Proof is limited to alcohol and mathematics (and logic), as the saying goes. Tim is correct that for the history of life, what we have is lots of evidence for biological evolution, mass extinctions, age of the earth, etc. An article on "Scientific Proof" states:

“In truth, science can never establish ‘truth’ or ‘fact’ in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. ‘Proof’, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics.” (by Dr. Doug Theobald)

According to "The Extinction Files" there have been 23 extinction events since the Cambrian period, with 6 being major ones (last one was the KT boundary mass extinction of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago). For all intents and purposes they are “proven” but not in a mathematical sense. There is a lot of evidence based on the fossil record.

Phil P

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

PhilVaz:

Proof is limited to alcohol and mathematics (and logic), as the saying goes. Tim is correct that for the history of life, what we have is lots of evidence for biological evolution, mass extinctions, age of the earth, etc. An article on "Scientific Proof" states:

“In truth, science can never establish ‘truth’ or ‘fact’ in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. ‘Proof’, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics.” (by Dr. Doug Theobald)

According to "The Extinction Files" there have been 23 extinction events since the Cambrian period, with 6 being major ones (last one was the KT boundary mass extinction of the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago). For all intents and purposes they are “proven” but not in a mathematical sense. There is a lot of evidence based on the fossil record.

**Ahh. So for the sake of “history of life” discussion purposes, we are assuming that logic cannot give us a provable answer in this arena and since scientific proof is based on logic - science cannot provide proof in this topic. Did I get the basics there? **

---

**If so, then I suppose I would be right then in saying that this particuial scientific subject is mostly hot air? It is nothing but making opinions and having discussion about various imagined possiblities based on theories of what physical evidence might mean. **

---

** Nothing wrong with that either, as long as people understand that is what it is. My only issue with things like the big bang theory for example, it that it is presented as a proven fact when it is not. If people want to discuss theories and possiblities - that’s great and good, but when they start claiming it is scientific fact when it isn’t - that bothers me.**

 

[PhilVaz]

wife << If so, then I suppose I would be right then in saying that this particuial scientific subject is mostly hot air? It is nothing but making opinions and having discussion about various imagined possiblities based on theories of what physical evidence might mean. >>

No you would be incorrect, and I hope you are home schooling your kids with the correct scientific knowledge for biological evolution and the age of the earth as accepted by Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Schonborn, and TalkOrigins, and not the Kolbe Center, AnswersInGenesis, or Dr. Dino.

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION AND OLD EARTH (by me and others)

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

There was the great flood afterall. I’m not trying to argue the science of these issues with you, just pointing out that these particuliar issues are as yet unproven. Doesn’t mean they are plausable or maybe even true - just unproven.

The mass extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous was not caused by a flood.

It’s obvious that you are not trying to argue the science because there really is no arguement there. If you want to believe that there was a flood, knock your self out. Just understand that you are opposed to science, so don’t count on it to back you up.

I have never heard a scientist say or even write that science doesn’t prove anything. Then science would be nothing more than hot air. Science does prove things. What is gravity? Why do plants have green leaves? How does a dr. know how to treat a patient? Medicine to give? Surgery to perform? We know these things through proven facts of science. We can do experiments to validate those facts and nature backs up that science. That doesn’t mean something else is not also true and factual, it just hasn’t been proven yet.

Then I suggest that you should study science. You are wrong. No legetimate scientist will claim to prove anything. Your claim that science would be nothing more than hot air if it is not able to prove anything is only a statement of your lack of knowledge regarding science.

I will throw your questions back at you.

What is gravity? What causes gravity?

How does a doctor know how to treat a patient?

We do know anything through “proven facts of science”. We know things based on observations.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

**Ahh. So for the sake of “history of life” discussion purposes, we are assuming that logic cannot give us a provable answer in this arena and since scientific proof is based on logic - science cannot provide proof in this topic. **

Can you give a scientific example of scientific proof? Not Rob’s Wife’s example, but a scientific example?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Rob's Wife:

**If so, then I suppose I would be right then in saying that this particuial scientific subject is mostly hot air? It is nothing but making opinions and having discussion about various imagined possiblities based on theories of what physical evidence might mean. **

No, it means that you don’t understand science in the least.

Peace

Tim

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

PhilVaz:

No you would be incorrect

Okay. Then what is it based on then to make it valid to call some of these claims fact? Please note that I shouldn’t have used the words “hot air” - upon reading my posts over I find that may have come across as rude and I didn’t intend that. All I meant was that this particuliar science topic is based in debate, as no perspective can be scientificly proven as factual.

, and I hope you are home schooling your kids with the correct scientific knowledge for biological evolution and the age of the earth as accepted by Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Schonborn, and TalkOrigins, and not the Kolbe Center, AnswersInGenesis, or Dr. Dino.

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION AND OLD EARTH (by me and others)

I do not use the Kolbe Center, AnswersInGenesis or Dr. Dino. Bare with me on the other sites you list because I have the slowest dial up connection ever. My understanding is the Church as said biological evolution and/or old earth theories are not contrary to our faith. This does not mean the Church says they are indeed factual events, only that they are accepted as theories that are not counter to Catholic Traditions or the scriptures. In other words, it isn’t heresy for someone to say they think those things may well have happened that way. I certainly agree with that.

My children are very young (oldest is only 10) so we haven’t dug as deep into these issues as I’m sure we will in the upper grades. I use quality, current, Catholic texts through Seton (www.setonhome.org I don’t use their protestant science recommendations) and we discuss things a good deal. (Science and history are our family favorites.) I’m honest with my children. I tell them we do not know how old the earth is and how the world came to be or what the first humans looked like. (Other than in God’s image - Who I haven’t seen personally yet. ) I tell them many people have theories based on what we do know about the world and history. I tell them no matter what facts may be learned in the future, it’s all through God’s hand that it happened.

**I also ask them what they think and what theories they have about it all. Interestingly enough, my then 8 yr old said once he thought everything came from water because everything needs water to live. I hadn’t even mentioned the 1 cell evolving out of the muck into various different life forms yet! **

 

[PhilVaz]

wife << I hadn’t even mentioned the 1 cell evolving out of the muck into various different life forms yet! >>

All right you win. But when they get older you can teach them biology and origin of life, and how to reconcile it all with Genesis and Catholic theology. I don’t have kids so I shouldn’t talk. You are doing well. But you can tell them the earth is 4.5 billion since that’s well established.

Now answer Tim’s (Orogeny’s) questions and continue to stay away from Kolbe Center, Ken Ham, and Dr. Dino. A little Mike Behe is OK but not too much. And sorry about your dial-up.

Phil P

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Okay Tim, I’m obviusly annoying you. I’ll try not to annoy you further with my questions.

I’d like to point out that my original response to the topic was not ever intended to debate science. The topic was how could the mass extinction be compatible with a loving God and I gave an example of what I felt it could have illustrated. My theory is just as valid as any other because any theory on how a loving God could have allowed it assumes to know the mind of God at the time - which isn’t possible for any of us.

---

to continue…

---

The mass extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous was not caused by a flood.

I never wrote that it was. I said I had no arguement with anyone believing there was a mass extinction during the Cretaceous period. If the Lord God saw fit to cause the flood at one time, I see no reason to think He would not at some point have done this mass extinction also.

It’s obvious that you are not trying to argue the science because there really is no arguement there. If you want to believe that there was a flood, knock your self out. Just understand that you are opposed to science, so don’t count on it to back you up.

It’d be nice if you read my words instead of assuming things. I never said I was arguing the science or even this point of it. In fact, I’ve gone out of my way to NOT argue the science.

We do know anything through “proven facts of science”. We know things based on observations.

Can you give a scientific example of scientific proof?

Yes indeed. Our observations lead us to certain facts that are the basis of knowledge. We know a diabetic needs insulin because we have observed and studied the human body and that has led to the knowledge, the scientific fact, that people must have insulin to live. It has been proven time and again that if they don’t get insulin - they die. It has been proven time and again that giving them insulin injections will prolong their life.