User talk:P bodemeister

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Evolution
The purpose of Talk:Evolution isn't to discuss the validity of evolution, but rather to discuss ways to improve the article. Guettarda 05:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a Roman Catholic who believes in creationism, but I also believe in certain parts of evolution. The theory of natural selection makes perfect sense and there are many examples of it as well. However, certain parts of evolution do not make sense. One such point I would like to talk about from a scientific and spiritual view is the theory that humans evolved from apes.


 * Your church accepts the evolution of the human body by natural selection, but holds that the human soul is the creation of God. BTW humans didn't evolve from apes, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. There is an important distinction.--Michael Johnson 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, when apes were evolving into humans and became the species of homo erectus and then the species of homo habilis, what happened to the species of homo habilis and homo erectus? There are no fossil records that show any such species ever existed. Also, using logic, say hypothetically, a group of homo habilis primates went to an area, and settled, wouldn't conditions have been okay for them to stay as they are and not evolve? The world has stayed relativily the same for the last 20,000 years as far as I know. So why would the homo habilis species have to evolve. There are thousands upon thousands of examples of species that have stayed the same, some even since the time of the dinosaur(the shark). So it would be a pretty rare occurence the the entire species of the homo habilis would wipe out. Let's remember that homo habilis creatures would be really smart. They are a cross between a human and an ape and humans we obviously know are extremely smart and apes are pretty smart too, so why would the homo habilis stay in an environment that would force them to evolve, which would take a very long time as evolutionists will admit, when they could just move to another area in which life would be suitable to live and they would not have to evolve? Also, this would happen not just with homo habilis, but with homo erectus, too. The chances of that happening are so small that you can just rule it out automatically.
 * There are very well preserved fossils of both homo habilis and homo erectus which share many common features with humans but are also more apelike.
 * The area they settled to may have had drastically different conditions than their previous habitat. The world might have stayed the same, but it has millions of different habitats.  Almost no species have stayed the same over such ranges of time.  Actually, 99.9% of all species in the history of earth have gone extinct.
 * The exact reason why they stayed in an area is not known. Maybe the tribe chief really liked a specific hill or maybe the food source was just too good to give up.  Understand that using probabilies on hind sight is not a valid argument against evolution.  There are many sources on the internet that show that this view is flawed.


 * I'm no expert, but there have been many humanoid species evolve, some have simply become extinct, some are our ancestors. Actually we are pretty good at wiping out other species, and it would not be surprising to learn that we wiped out our nearest relatives first. Count modern humans as being around for at least 200000 years, not 20000. Check out Human evolution --Michael Johnson 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Another fault I would like to discuss about the theory of humans evolving from apes(although a strange one) also has a little bit of a spiritual side to it, too. Primates have sex in which the male mounts the female from the back because that's where the female's vagina is, but a human female's vagina is in her front. If humans evolved from apes, then during that evolution, the female's vagina moved to the front. I see no evolutionary gain in moving the vagina of the female to the front. For primates, having the female's vagina in the back has one main advantage: it would be much easier for primates to have sex in a tree where as if they had sex as humans have it, it would be especially diffucult to balance in a tree in the position they would be in. If there were predators below it would be dangerous. Then what advantage would it play in moving the vagina of a female human to the front? none, from an evolutionary standpoint. It would be more of a disadvantage. And, according to evolution, every evolutionary change in anatomy produces some advantagious change. So why do human females have their vagina in the front? Because they never evolved from apes and all humans were created special by God. Why did God put the human female's vagina in the front? Sex between a man and a woman is a very sacred thing, when they both have their genitals in front and they mount each other instead of a male mounting a female, it shows that they are equals. It also makes the it much more of an intimate and special embrace.


 * I apologise I didn't realise you were only 14. My initial responce was not really suitable. I think it best to say that as time goes on, you will discover that humans enjoy sex from both front and rear, and so the distinctions you are trying to draw are not really valid. There are also mammals that do have very human like sexual behaviour, for instance the Bonobo. --Michael Johnson 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

God has obviously made humans the best and to reign over all the other creatures with our bodies that don't really specialize in one particular thing as most other animal's bodies do, and God made us the smartest, too. But the most important thing God gave is our Spirit, our personality, which makes each and everyone of us unique and special and that is why God loves each of us so dearly and that is why I love God with my entire heart and soul. I hope I have changed your opinion on evolution and also your perception of the Catholic Church. I hope that in reading this that you may discover that if your heart is longing for something, that you will discover it and be satisfied with the great Lord Jesus Christ and his Father. Our Faith empowers us to do wonderful things, it empowered me to not be afraid and to write this blog, which few people may read but I hope it will mean something to those who do, after all I am only fourteen years old and I came up with all of the above reasons explaining away the theory that humans evolved from apes. - p_bodemeister


 * well thats your view. And if it makes you happy, great. --Michael Johnson 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to your views, but please don't use Wikipedia as a debate forum or to try to persuade others to follow your religious views. If you wish freee webspace, there are many providers out there; Xanga and Blogger are two popular free blogging services. If you have any questions about this or about science, I'd be happy to answer them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to apologize for not doing as much research as I probably should have, especially concerning the statement, "There are no fossil records that show [homo habilis or homo erectus] ever existed." because there are, but it is debatable whether or not the species is a direct human ancestor as the wikipedia homo habilis article says. I would also like to apologize for trying to use wikipedia to express my views(I won't anymore because it will probably be deleted anyway, and because it should be used to say how the article could be improved). It's just that this is one of the main missions of the Catholic Church: to bring other people into the Catholic church. From posssibly 7/10/06 on I will use wikireason or those other free blogging services, but over the next couple of days I will argue about a few points Michael Johnson made. There are a few points that I will not even try to argue because I don't know nearly as much as I should because I thought I knew a lot about certain parts of human evolution but I don't (I'm only 14, give me a break), but I encourage other readers to do some research of their own on certain points I will not address. Let's remeber that about 1/3 of the world is Christian and don't believe humans evolved from apes for reasons that make sense. Just because I don't know all the answers doesn't mean other Christians don't and that all other Christians are wrong. This issue is being debated all the time as I type and will continue to be debated. Also, Michael Johnson, don't talk down to me because I am fourteen. I may not have as much experience in life as people of your age, but I do understand a lot of things about life. -p_bodemeister   7/6/06


 * No intention to talk down to you. In fact the quality of your arguments led me to believe that you were an adult, which led me to phrase an argument in a way I regret. That is what I apologised for. And as a parting comment, remember many Christians do accept evolution of humans, including your Pope. See Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. I've decided to stop watching this page, so good luck with your search for understanding. --Michael Johnson 05:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * P, you're welcome to promote your religious views to whomever is interested, but Wikipedia really isn't the place for it. You'll also find that many people are quite content with their current religious practices; they don't feel it necessary to convince others to follow their views and may resent your attempts to convince them that your style of worship is superior. If there are editors who wish to discuss evolution or other matters with you, you may do so, but please keep it on user talk pages and away from articles. Being Christian or being religious in general is not equivalent to rejecting science. There are many religious people, Christian and otherwise, who are perfectly comfortable with the scientific model of the universe, Earth, and its inhabitants. Many people do feel that various areas of science, especially evolution, conflict with their religious beliefs; you can find more about this debate in the "Social and religious controversies" section of the Evolution article. Of course, no debate exists within the scientific community. Finally, you may use four tildes (that is, ) to sign and date your comments. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many species which emerge and exist side-by-side with the 'old' species. go here to see for yourself.  If you do your research, you'll find that every objection you have to evolution has, by current research, been addressed in one way or another.  While faith and science are not mutually exclusive, and while you are certainly allowed to believe whatever you wish, it is the testability of physical models in this natural world allows us to verify whether a belief we have about the physical world is true or not.  As a physicist for several years, I can say that I have seen with my own eyes and taken measurements with my own hands in many laboratories and observatories that directly contradict what religions (including Catholicism) hold as "true" regarding the physical world.  The burden is then: do we humans continue to believe whatever we want, or do we believe what we measure and see, what we can touch?  This is not a comfortable position, but as thinking beings we have no other choice. Astrobayes 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)