Vestiges for Peter B.

Originally posted by compmage:We are going around in circles. We allow a certain level of responsibility for a certain age without knowing if the person is mature enough to handle that responsibility.That is why we have penalities for those who abuse them. They are privileges and not rights.Plus there is already something for children which can prove they are mature enough to handle adult responsibility. It is called emancipation.Let see. Assuming sex to be illegal before the age of 16. You follow the law, how exactly would you have any experiance what-so-ever in regards to sex when you turn 16?Experience as in life. To know what is right and what is wrong.Too late or not. What is the difference?Life, plus the body is better able to handle the responsiblity. Would you want a 13 or 14 year old to have a baby? Birth control is far from perfect. They may be able to handle the responsibility of having sex, but not the responsibilty of raising a child of their own.Is this true for the entire body or just most of it?Most of it. Hair and nails and the like don't count because they are already dead and it is really not growth, but expelling of dead tissues.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear nos,

​

You write:
"The reason why men have nipples is because the natural form of life is female, not male. If you look at the 23rd chromosome pair in men you will see that the Y is actually a broken X."

​

I say:
What do you mean? The shape of the Y chromosome during mitosis? Observed through a light microscope? Or the DNA sequences? If you make such statements please back them up by references. Where did you find this information? According to my knowledge the Y chromosome has only a minor recombining part, demonstrating minor sequence homology with X.

​

Peter

​

---

It was from a documentary on the differences and simularities between men and women.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

We are way off topic Schraf, so I am going to drop this. But I want to note that basically what I propose boils down to using discretion in the matter, just as in your last sentence.

​

---

Discretion?

Originally posted by John:If you follow the thread, Shraf made a statement to the effect that a judge's discretion should come into play in some circumstances, which is the functional equivalent of the proposal I made in my now much maligned little article. [/B]In a case like this this so-called discretion of the judge would still be as subject. A smart, but not truly mature, teen could fool a judge in the same manner that a socio-path can fake emotions.
Your "article" got what it deserves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Nos,

​

Better start reading some SCIENTIFIC work on this topic. The Y chromosome is NOT a broken X chromosome. The Y chromosome specifies unique male-specific genes.

​

BW
Peter

---

Maybe, but just have a look at it itself. It looks more like an X than a Y. The break may have caused certain mutations afterwards.

Originally posted by John:Do you not understand that a smart teen capable of willful deception would, in a US court of law, be considered mature enough to stand trial as an adult in, for example, a murder case? Yet this same teen is not mature enough to decide to f#%k? Really, nos, that is absurd.

​

That has more to do with people wanting some kind of "justice" for out of hand children than any real sign of maturity. It is wrong to try children as adults. Texas wants to execute the mentally incompetant as well. They'd probably execute children if they could.No nation can truly call itself civilized which still executes its own citizens.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Nos,

​

Mammuthus posted some reviews. They demonstrate that the X is not a broken Y. Their conclusion is "that the PAR (pseudoautosomal region) are relics of differntial additions, loss, rearrangements and degradation of the Y chromosome in different mammalian." My conlusion: nobody knows the origin of the Y chromosome (specific genes).

​

Peter

---

They don't know when the mutation occured which separated the sexes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Nos,

​

They don't know WHEN the mutations occured AND they don't know WHERE the genes came from. Before mutations to occur there has to be a gene, isn't it? Or before losses, translocations, rearrangements, and degradations there has to be a lot of genes, isn't it? As a matter of fact nobody knows where they came from, and evo's simply ignore the question. Evo's BELIEVE that is just popped into existance and creo's believe it has been created. I already mentioned that we are not able to trace back the origin because of genetic uncertainty. So, apperently we have two believe systems: one is atheistic (evolutionism) the other one is theistic (creationism). That's what the fuss is about. But, it is just a matter of choise. Get familiar with the matter involved. Read opposite opinions, falsifications, and falsifications of falsifications. Keep what is good and you will find the truth.

​

best wishes
Peter

---

Yup, you're a creationist alright since you don't have a real clue about evolution.I already have and that is why I know that evolution is true and creationism is nothing but wishful "thinking". There is just too much credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence in favor of evolution and all you have is your bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
It is wrong to try children as adults. Texas wants to execute the mentally incompetant as well.

---

​

Both you and schraf are skipping over the question of when we become adults.

​

---

When society says we are. In the USA it is 21, in Canada it is 19. In primitive cultures it is as soon as your body is old enough to reproduce.

Originally posted by John:You do not pay attention. In the US there are dozens of different ages of maturity depending on what you want to do, where you want to do it, who you want to do it with, and what sex you are.

​

Your reply is of course begging the question. You again gallop happily right over the important bits. Why 21? Why 19? Who set the age? Why do I believe them? Why is it OK that the age of maturity changes culture to culture? It all depends on the cultural norms and other things such as population size, educational systems, male to female ratio, experience from observed behaviors at certain age levels, etc.It is not as simple as you would want it to be. Sorry, but it seems that the cops won't be letting you bonk any young teenage girls any time soon and we can see just how much you want to do that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
It all depends on the cultural norms and other things such as population size, educational systems, male to female ratio, experience from observed behaviors at certain age levels, etc.

---

​

Wow.... you made a lot of words say nothing. You must be very proud.

​

quote:

---

It is not as simple as you would want it to be.

---

​

Interesting statement coming from someone who answers my question of when we become adults with "In the USA its 21"

​

quote:

---

Sorry, but it seems that the cops won't be letting you bonk any young teenage girls any time soon and we can see just how much you want to do that.

---

​

You honestly cannot follow an argument, can you? You haven't even figured out what the argument is about.

​

oh... and as much fun as I've had watching you make an idiot of yourself, I am really tired of this crap.... so...

​

you've just become irrelevant.

​

---

Of course I know what this arguement is about. You want to be legally able to bonk underage girls and you are angry that society won't let you. Why don't you try Thailand, I hear that they don't have an age of consent there.

Originally posted by Joe Meert:JM: Of course, the alternative answer is that your paper was not Nature material. Nature rejects many manuscripts, there are other places one can publish. Don't start with the conspiracy because you got a paper rejected. You'll quit before you start. Did Nature send your article out for review or was it rejected by the board? If you got reviews, you can use the critiques to sharpen your argument. If the board rejected it, why not try a different journal. Don't resort automatically to conspiracy.Like most creationists he likes to start at the top instead of working his way up through a gradual process and adapting his paper because it is perfect already. Unlike a Creationist's journal Nature does have standards and they won't publish just any thing sent to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear whoever,
whomever
Inresponse to:

​

"JM: Of course, the alternative answer is that your paper was not Nature material. Nature rejects many manuscripts, there are other places one can publish. Don't start with the conspiracy because you got a paper rejected. You'll quit before you start. Did Nature send your article out for review or was it rejected by the board? If you got reviews, you can use the critiques to sharpen your argument. If the board rejected it, why not try a different journal. Don't resort automatically to conspiracy.

​

You say:
"Like most creationists he likes to start at the top instead of working his way up through a gradual process and adapting his paper because it is perfect already. "

​

My response:
"If one finds something new, than it is a common thing in science to send it in as high as possible, and work downwards. I seems that you are not in science, since you would start submitting your findings as low as possible and than work upwards (sound like evolutionism) sorry to disappoint you, but that's not the way it works in science. It may be that you start submitting your manuscrips to the "Journal of Irreproducable Results", I don't. Besides, you can't work upwards. So, if you have a sensible contribution to the discussion, go ahead, otherwise be silent. And, thanks for the label (pretty predictive)".

​

And you say:
"Unlike a Creationist's journal Nature does have standards and they won't publish just any thing sent to them."

​

I say:
"Correct. So now I work downwards. Anyway, it was just a hypothesis".

​

best wishes
Peter

---

Do you understand the concept of satire? As in Creationists mistakenly believe that we were created as we are now, at the top (So far).The reason why Nature didn't accept your "hypothesis" and a creationist journal would is that it wasn't credible. Creationists don't care about facts since belief and faith is far more important to them.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:

quote:

---

However, yes, you are right that someone could technically be defined as a Creationist if they believe in, say, Theistic evolution, or in Deism.

---

​

But around here, someone who believes in theistic evolution is defined as an evolutionist.

​

Now, for the record, what is "Deism"?

​

Moose

---

Deism:
1. The form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelationIn other words, "God doesn't live here anymore."

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Selective are we? A more reasonable and full definition for a time like this, and more widely used terminology for the word:

​

quote:

---

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. -Emphesis Mine

---

​

----------------

​

---

That's what what my dictionary said. Their belief is basically, "God doesn't live here anymore."