Vestiges for Peter B.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
If there are no such things as vestiges, as you confidently proclaim in another thread, please provide the evidence that the following structures are not vestigial:

​

femurs in whales

​

auricularis muscles in humans

​

extensor coccygis in humans

​

I have the feeling that either the Peter Borger that posts here is not the Peter Borger with actual scientific publications, or that he is but he is just another creationist with a degree.

---

A degree bought at a diaploma mill you mean.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
To what great use have you been putting your nipples to recently

---

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. We have many other "female" features as well. In fact during the early stages of a pregnancy we're all female as well. So, the bible account if it were to be accurate would be Eve then Adam.At the time this was written it was believed that all a woman did was carry a man's "seed" for him. That she didn't have any genetic say in "his" offspring.

Originally posted by Peter:I thought most ancient cultures were matriarchal.They were, but we're speaking of bibical times which are much more recent and male centred.Remember, Wicca had existed for over 23,000 years prior to the invention of Christianity.

Originally posted by John:There really isn't any evidence that prehistoric cultures were matriarchal. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Either way the evidence isn't there.Many of the early deities were female. I can understand why you wouldn't want to think that this were possible. You come from a chauvinistic culture.http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/smako/def-cult.htmIt seems to me that you would have pretty much what we see today in non-industrialized societies and what we see in other primates-- a whole bunch of different social structures. To say, 'pre-historic culture was matriarchal' is a huge oversimplification and a very bad gamble as well.Even in the animal kingdom females are mostly in charge. I.E. Insects, many of the big cats, Elephants, etc...Wicca didn't exist at all until it was invented in the '70s. You're thinking of modern Wicca which (bad pun) has very little to do with it's anicent counterpart because they had to basically start from scratch because of centuries of persecution by the Church which caused the lost of many of the old practices, rituals, and rites. This is why it isn't considered to be the oldest living religion. Hinduism is the oldest living religion now.If Wicca only existed since the 1970's then why did the Church murder so many innocent people who they thought were practicing witchcraft over the centuries starting when they first invaded Europe?Before the Christian infestation of Europe it had been consider a compliment to be called a witch. This is where we also get the word wit from as well.I just visited your home page and it explains why you are saying this.The main graphic there speaks volumes of what you think of women. Women are not demonic temptresses.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-10-2002]

Originally posted by John:Big deal. Many of the dieties were male. But the real clincher is that you can't go back much beyond 7000 years ago without guessing.Archeologists seem to think better of that.How the hell do you know what I want to think possible?I visited your site.And hence I too am chauvinistic... Apparently.No, not mostly in charge, but sometimes in charge, which essentially is what I said. There is a big mix of social structures in the animal kingdom, as our little buddies the apes and monkeys demonstrate.Mostly in charge.I am thinking of modern Wicca because there is no ancient counterpart.Yes, there is and there is plenty of real evidence to suppose it despite the Churches best efforts to eradicate it.http://moonraven.salemconnection.net/...history/ancient.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_chr.htm
http://www.virtualavalon.com/wakingdragon/W101.htm Like you said, it was started from scratch. That makes it new, not old. There is no continuity of ritual or tradition.There is very little, but there is still some influence.Pretty much anything non-Christian, or even just peculiar, counted as witchcraft. Of course there were native religions which got persecuted. This doesn't mean that there was a WICCA!!!! spanning back 23,000 years.You're ignorance is amazing.You should look deeper.There really isn't all that much depth to your site.Why would I adopt the moniker of "Hell's Handmaiden" if I hate women as much as you seem to think? Why not "The Devil's Alter Boy" instead? That way I can maintain my masculinity and my misogyny.By the fact that you had used it in the first place. That and the graphic as well speak for themselves.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-11-2002]

Originally posted by John:Let's look at nature.

​

Non-human primates, our closest relatives, exhibit pretty much every social structure observed in humans and, I am sorry to say, also with a strong tendency toward male dominance. As analogies go, that is the best we've got. I don't argue that it is right or that it justifies relegating women to an inferior status. In other words, the facts are not my fault. It is a lot more reasonable to assume similar cultural development in humans-- that there were many various cultures-- than to assume that human pre-history was exclusively female dominated. But analogy doesn't prove anything either. We really don't know, which has been my oint all along.You are limiting your example.Mammals also exhibit a huge variety of social structures, many of them male dominant. But what does it matter? The further away from humans we get the more guessing is involved. There are hundreds of millions of years of evolution involved. Go back far enough you find asexually reproducing cells.In hunter/gatherer societies the males mostly just did the hunting while the did the rest. It is most likely that the first farmer was female as well.Genetically, a Y-chromosome is a broken X-chomosome so you can call those cells female I suppose, but it does not follow that 500 million years later, human society was female dominant. Nor does it follow that the reverse is true.Early human agricultual was mainly female dominate because it was the women who did the work.The real evidence is that there were countless local religions, not one big Wiccan religion. Wicca is a compilation. Compiling bits and pieces of those religion into one does not mean there was an ancient counterpart to Wicca.The Church has done quite a good job of misinformation.Why are you posting a link to Religious Tolerance .org? Do I have a problem with Wicca?Apparently you do since you are going by what misinformation the Church has put out about it.How does the author know this? He is speaking of a time tens of thousands of years prior to written history. And then religion doesn't change until Christianity? Don't you think that is a little over simplified?Occum's Razor.As is your lack of actual information. There are none so blind....What?Exactly my point.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Unsupported assertation. Prove it.http://www.mythome.org/mythevol.htmlFemale dominated pantheons :
This was once very common; the Goddess as a shared diety among hundreds of cultures is cited by writers like

​

C. Jung Introduction to a science of Mythology
J F. Campbell Myths To Live By 1988
Shahrukh, Husan

​

The Goddess , 1997
The Woman's Companion to Mythology , 1997

​

Gimbutas, Marija Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe
Walker, Barbara J. Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets

​

There is nothing gentle about matriarchies since they too lived near the land, and no child would grow up not knowing that animals and plants were killed for food (and seeing it done often as not). There is no modern nonsense about the balance of nature, of the benign nature of Mother Earth.
All these neolithic farming people were one harvest away from starvation. And when the harvest was poor, they did starve. Hungry wild animals would kill their livestock, their children, themselves if the opportunity arose.
For example, 5000 years before today lions apparently were in most areas of central Europe and Asia. Thus the same Mother Earth that provided cereals, grasses, and animals that people ate, and used also provided the famines, the predators and the sickness. The Goddess was not some abstract idea, she was a creator and a destroyer. Anyone could see the process going on day by day.
And in the powerful Knossos empire, a matriarchy, accounting and taxes were 'invented' and used as any patriachy would, to redistribute income from those that have income to the government, the priesthood, and in a 5000 years before today version of the trickle down effect, the desperately poor.

​

As monotheism replaced pantheism and male priests replaced female ones the characteristics of the god or gods became more the assertive male, less the assertive female.http://www.aristasia.co.uk/heritage.html
http://www.humanevolution.net/a/matrilineal.htmlThat's just what I used to hear in Bible School. Come on, now. You can do better than that.I guess that it influenced you more than you realized. Thus that is why you chose the image you did on your web site of women being demonic temptresses.

Originally posted by John:Perhaps you misunderstand what is required to prove a postulate. You need evidence, not the say-so of the authors of popular press books.I bet that if I had a time machine and took you back then you would still not want to believe it.The article starts with at the beginning of recorded history. Extrapolating backwards past a few generations is not valid. 23000bc is quite a few generations.We have examples of writings going back 10,000 years.I am so glad you know me so well.What is there know?Has it occurred to you that I don't see it the way you do?Of course, I don't see women in that demeaning context as primarily sex objects to tempt men as you have shown.Does this sound familiar?"When ought the cops let me bonk her?"This is about an article on your web site about lowering the age of consent.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-11-2002]

Originally posted by compmage:I happen to fully agree with John's article. Maturity is the deciding factor and it's a state of mind, not a number.

​

I also have a friend who was found guilty of stat rape. The judge said he would have thrown the case out if the law permitted. Unfortuantely she was 6 weeks underage and her parents had layed charges, legally he was guilty. He did get the minimum though (a fine), but the record stays with him for live.There is a big difference between the age of majority (Adult responsibility) and the age of consent. Are you going to allow the average 14 year old to drive, vote, drink, or smoke as well just because some of them may act more mature then the rest? Or is it just that he wanted to have sex with little girls and not get in trouble for it? John made a very poor choice of titles "When ought the cops let me bonk her?" and this shows what his true intents are.Underage is underage even if it is by one day.Incidently the age of majority in Canada is 19 and I think, I'm not sure, but the age of concent is 14. Though, there is some talk of rising it to 16 again.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-12-2002]

Originally posted by John:Irrelevant.

Originally posted by compmage:I never said anything about the average 14 year old. My point (and John's) is that assigning an age is arbitrairy. However, I understand that given something like drinking or smoking, the person behind the counter often does not know if the child is or isn't mature enough to make an informed choice. I don't think there is an easy solution that is completely fair.There has to be a line drawn somewhere. It is not like it was in the past when it was important to reproduce as soon as one was able to. Having a higher age of consent is also a sound means of population control as well.Legally yes, but as a person are you really significantly different today than what you were yesterday?

​

In South Africa it is 16 for concent. You may drink, smoke and drive at 18, but can't sing a legal document before 21. This just shows exactly how arbitrairy it really is.Each culture has its own standards and tries to adhere to them.BTW, how does one "sign" a legal document? Also, maybe you should re-read my previous reply. I was editing it while you were replying to it.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-12-2002]

[b]Originally posted by compmage:/bYes the line has to be drawn. However, it might be better if age was not used as a criteria. An option (though maybe not very praticle) could work along the lines of a drivers licence (excluding the age requirement). Pass the test and you are considered 'adult'.What happens if a smart preteen takes this test and passes it? Are they to be consider an adult as well? Would you want someone that young and physically weak to be driving around?Yes, I just think that the standards are arbitrairy. Age is not a good indicator of maturity.For most it is a good indicator. There is much to be said for experience.Signing it is pretty easy, singing it is the hard part Gee, I had corrected your spelling without realizing it. Poor choice of title? Sure, although it is a little funny in a sick sort of way.Exactly.I don't think it is enough to label him though.He labeled himself.

Originally posted by Quetzal:Hi nos. I agree that there were a lot of female deities - most of the early creation myths we can trace enshrined the female principle as the creator (makes sense, no?). This also translated to agriculture, husbandry, etc. Sumer, the Aztecs, etc, almost invariably used female deities in these roles. However, I would say that you might have a tough case showing correlation between having a bunch of female deities - even creators - and having a matriarchal society. Most of the early "civilizations" (i.e., from which we have something resembling written records - the Mesoamerican cultures, Sumer, Egypt, the pre-Babylonian chariot cultures, etc) all were (as near as we can tell) patriarchal societies.You are meantioning mostly recent cultures in comparison. It most likely was nt too long after the begining of the agricultural revolution with loose nit tribes instead of any real close civilization.Do you have any archeological references indicating that there is a correlation between polytheists having some female deities and the type of society?I'm basing this on several documentaries I had watched.WRT: The antiquity of wicca - I have little knowledge of the subject. Do you have any info or references tending to show a 20,000+ year old religion of any kind? Let alone wicca (which I thought stemmed from worship of Diana - another fertility goddess, of which there are quite a number as I mentioned). Certainly no question the Church spent an inordinate amount of effort attempting (fairly successfully) to extirpate ALL of the old religions - including wicca. They spent nearly as much time extirpating any heresies within their own ranks (think Mithraism or the flagelantes).I had a very good reference on the history of ancient Wicca from when I use to surf the BBS networks (Before the Internet became very popular and cheap to access), but I can't find the link to it anymore.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-12-2002]

Originally posted by compmage:I would hope that any such tests would be design to avoid situations like this. Afterall, the whole purpose of any such test would be to determine if a person is mature/responsible/(any other requirement) enough. I am not, and was not, saying that if you are mature you should be allowed to drive. Just as age is not always a good indicator of maturity, so maturity is not a good indicator of driving ability.But passing the test is suppose to be the indicator of being mature enough. There are examples of pre-teens going to university as well.As I had said this is not the past where all a person had to do to be considered an adult was to pass some rite of passage.And experiance is gained by living, not being alive (if you understand what I am getting at).And how much experience can a child gain, especially for something as important as sex?

Originally posted by compmage:Ah, I think I see were we are missing each other. I am not speaking of a single test that would suddenly allow you to partake in all things 'adult', but rather different tests for different situations. This is also why I said that while this might be an option it is not terribly practicle.We already have something like that. That is why we only allow a certain level of responsibility for certain ages.No it isn't. But how is it better to say, "You are now 16 and therefore adult" compared to "You are now 16 and if you pass this test you are an adult"? Forgetting for the moment that many of the rites of passage included questionable practises.We don't say you're 16 and you're now an adult. What we say is that you're now 16 and have reached a certain level of experience to be allowed to do this thing.How would a person that is 14 with no experiance be different from a person that is 16, given a similar level of maturity?Two years extra experience to work with.How is an inexperianced, immature 18 year old any better able to make an informed choice than an inexperianced, mature 16 year old?If one hasn't learn responsibility by age 18 than it is too late. My mother use to call it idiot hill (She had 5 sons, I'm number 5, and 1 daughter (#6)) and she said that if they hadn't gotten over it by then it was too late. BTW, before the age of First Maturity (Mid 20's) a person doesn't actually age, it is more accurate to say that they have so many years of growth instead. If you continued to grow you would never age. Aging is dying.