Muhamed was a child molester.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
She was married at 6...
Before Muhammed could penetrate her he would rub his member on her...
6 years old when he took her from her family she brought her dolls with her...
At 9 years old her penetrated her...
Not 12 or older...
I am not saying all Muslims practice pedophilia now or then...
But Muhammed did...
By today's standards even 12 is not an age acceptable to many at all...
Sure back then people are said to have a shorter life span....
People can make all kinds of excuses for why it was acceptable...
The most popular seems to be that she was 12 years old...
But she was married at 6 and had been penetrated at 9... Not 12 years old...
In waring cultures this average age was greatly determined by war I'm sure starvation and disease played their part...
But in these waring cultures that would kill looking into the eye of their enemies they overtook the domain of those who were successfully beaten in war....
There goes the majority of the healthy men of mature age... That would mostly leave the old and the young....
Perhaps the land was suitable for capture as a functioning new trade route or was suitable for desired habitation... That is if it was not destroyed in the war most likely by fire... Or if it was not simply destroyed after the battle as further sign of dominance and further insult or symbol of the Victor's power...
That leaves the young and the old and the riches...
You can be sure the riches were not destroyed except for written records these too were destroyed for many reasons but to rob someone of the treasured past to remove all traces of them was absolutely something that was done foolishly by all...But everything and anything else of value was taken as treasure...
The young and the old remain... Unless the old person was from a wealth or powerful bloodline or had a valued skill or great knowledge... Well they were not useful as slaves they were too old to even fight...They were then destroyed like the written history...
So the young remained...Now they could still be formed as the young mind is pliable and young they would have been... Far too weak to fight so they were no physical threat...
They would have been treasure in the form of slaves or possible future soldiers... And a good many of the enslaved would have been used sexually...
At any rate people bought slaves that were capable most wanted something in particular for their money... So these young children were raised for a time before sale... And the girls sold for sex slaves were sold also as breeding stock...And would therefore have been wanted to be fertile capable of giving birth...
This would be highly uncommon for the majority of 9 year old girls... Then even if the 9 year old was capable her body would have to be considered for if she was tiny she would most likely die in childbirth...
This would be seen as a waste of money and aside from the loss of the mother who could have numerous other children the child too may die from trauma...
Make no mistake they were savages in many ways but they were not retarded and the had their own beliefs of what was acceptable...
9 year old girls were not favorable for sexual relations except for by the those whom would be considered depraved even then...
What I'm saying is he was just as sick then as he is now...
Like I said I'm not calling all Muslims child molesters I don't see why everybody is lumping all the Christians from then into the same light...
Because sexual maturity was the passage to adulthood back then 12 years old is a good approximation...
Most muslims and Jews and the sparse christians would have been doing what was right for that time and taking 12 and up...
But not Muhammad and other sick individuals of the Era... Be they muslim Jew or Christian not to mention any other religions....Nope they were practicing pedophilia just like Muhammad...

I don't doubt any of this, but you do realize all the Old Testament heros and Christians before 150 years ago, committed all the same atrocities..

None of the stuff you listed Was Muslim specific. The exact same could be said for every society (that I can think of) on the planet at that time period.


I'm also betting your very specific Mohammad reference is not verifiable. I personally don't doubt MOST of the powerful religious figures commuted such atrocities. Hell, they continue to today. Look at Catholic priests, Mormon leaders, exc...but I think it is ATLEAST fair to say the issues about Mohammad are still hotly debated, not know recognized facts.


If anyone thinks their ancestors were not monsters in most cases, then you are not paying attention.


I just ask that people apply the same logic to all cases.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: JoshuaCox
But again, you're defining them as "children". Were they children according to the time they were born?
Also, 'paedophilia' is a sexual preference for prepubescents, something hopefully everyone agrees is not good. But that isn't what we're talking about here.

I'm just trying to dig into your reasoning. It is bad because they're children, and they're children because they're a specific age?

Is it simply a matter of a number in your mind? It can't be.
Or is it that "I consider a person of age 12 today to be too immature or childish to even possibly be capable of making a decision regarding such a thing, so it must have been the same throughout history"?

Let me put it another way- if we had some magical way of knowing if a person had already hit puberty, and of sound mind to such an extent so as to be able to validly consent to marriage/sexual intercourse, would it be immoral still?

If you see a 12 year old standing next to a 20 year old, it's pretty obvious the 12 year old is a child...

Because you started your period does not mean your an adult!

Biologically you become an adult when you FINISH PUBERTY. Not when puberty begins.

A thousand years ago a 9 to 13 year old did not look like an adult. Puberty did not start at 5 and finish at 12, when they got their first period.

That's like saying a male is a man, when he gets his first pubic hair (singular). No a male is a man, when puberty ends at roughly 20.

Biology does not back up Stone Age mentalities. It contrasts against them.


Having sex with children (women who just got their fist period, and STARTED puberty) has always been a horrible thing to do. You can look at a 12 year old and know, it's a child and then look at a 20 year old and tell it's an adult. That hasn't changed in the last thousand years..

It really all goes back to the "women are property, and only good for breeding" mentality. From that POV sure "when they bleed, they breed." But that was a false assumption in the first place.

a reply to: JoshuaCox
Actually, biologial adulthood has always meant the onset of puberty.
A simple search brings up the wikipedia article on it:

Adult - Biological Adulthood
Although few or no established dictionaries provide a definition for the two word term biological adult, the first definition of adult in multiple dictionaries includes "the stage of the life cycle of an animal after reproductive capacity has been attained".[2][3] Thus, the base definition of the word adult is the period beginning at puberty. Although this is the primary definition of the base word adult, the two word term biological adult stresses or clarifies that the original definition, based on the beginning of puberty, is being used.

If you don't trust that, feel free to check up the references it mentions: The International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, and Churchill's Medical Dictionary.

But again, to clarify further, given your new post. It seems your issue is then with whether the person would be physically harmed (organ damage or some such thing) through sexual relations, and THAT is why it is immoral?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Thetan
Yikes, this should be interesting:

All cases of an adult having sexual relations with a nine year old child is a case of child molestation.
Muhamed was an adult who had sexual relations with nine year old child.
Therefore, Muhamed was a child molester.


This is the argument. The only way to prove the conclusion wrong is to show that one or both of the premises is false.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Well let's be fair...if you go back 700+ years , everyone's ancestors were pediaphiles. Including nearly every major figure from the bible.

Now I personally am in the camp that thinks we SHOULD NOT be excusing nor glorifying the immoral acts of previous generations.

Sure the founding fathers created America, but they were also mainly slave owning rapists.

That said I am quite sure the Jesus being transgendered is an insane stretch. About to read the site now.

According to YOUR INTERPRETATION. Biologically WHEN you hit puberty you are not a child anymore. SO its actually dishonest to call them pedophiles or child molestors.

Also Not all the founding fathers were slave owners. And Do you got any proof of them being rapist? Back that up.

You do realize you just said it was ok to have sex with a child, as long as they had entered puberty, right.....

Back in the past they were raised this way and they didnt see it as rape due to SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES. Death was very high back then. Youre not getting the distinction between Pre pubesent and pubesent.

Back in biblical times lifespans were very short due to disease,war,and social standing. To overcome the death rate it was each persons duty to procreate. Your people back then were way way smarter than todays versions. A 12 year old of intelligence back then will be mentally older if they were tested by todays standards.

You are so hung up on the laws of today you refuse to see. THEY DID NOT SCREW AROUND WITH GIRLS WHO WERE NOT BIOLOGICALLY READY BACK THEN. (caps for easy comprehension)

In MODERN TIMES though its NOT OK. but your saying it was wrong back then is just wrong because times and circumstances were not equal.

I'm hung up on laws?!?!

I'm the one saying that the law is irrelevant, and that right and wrong persist reguardless of whatever random laws were the flavor of the month....

Your the one saying since it was legal, it was cool...

We haven't needed to bang 12 year olds (some women start before then, some as young as 8 or9...some earlier than that.)
"For the survival of the species" since cave man days. Yet we continued having sex with children until what? 100/150 years ago???

So banging children for the "survival of the species" stopped 10,000 plus years ago, but it was still cool if you did last century.????


Oh and how do we know Mohammad's wife wasn't an early bloomer? According to you "if she bleeds, she breeds". So what if she had already started at 9? Then it's absolutely cool, huh?

Oh nope, it was cool for all your ancestors to rape children, but if the Muslims do it, they are evil and must be destroyed..

The hypocracy of some people is truly astounding...at least be consistent in your beliefs...

You MISSED my final sentence. I said IN MODERN TIMES its not right as in "against the law" Back in the anchient times THERE WAS NO LAWS PROHIBITING IT.

And according to most witnesses to Thomas jefferson He would not had forced his slaves to do anything they didnt want to do. Strange i know. I dont fault all of humanitys ancestors for keeping the species alive.

Also Im not advocating for muslims to die either. now terrorist can go die in a fire but average muslims are all right by me so where you claim hypocracy there is none. MOdern children are not as smart as ones from back in the past.

Modern children are lazy,weak,and woudnt know real work if they were slapped with it. Is this mean? yes it is but its true.

Also I do not appreciate your insinuation of me being OK with pedophilia. Im not. I do not fault the past peoples like you are doing because back then it wasnt a crime and as such I will not convict the dead. get off your high horse,theres a log in your eye.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: JoshuaCox
Actually, biologial adulthood has always meant the onset of puberty.
A simple search brings up the wikipedia article on it:

Adult - Biological Adulthood
Although few or no established dictionaries provide a definition for the two word term biological adult, the first definition of adult in multiple dictionaries includes "the stage of the life cycle of an animal after reproductive capacity has been attained".[2][3] Thus, the base definition of the word adult is the period beginning at puberty. Although this is the primary definition of the base word adult, the two word term biological adult stresses or clarifies that the original definition, based on the beginning of puberty, is being used.

If you don't trust that, feel free to check up the references it mentions: The International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, and Churchill's Medical Dictionary.

But again, to clarify further, given your new post. It seems your issue is then with whether the person would be physically harmed (organ damage or some such thing) through sexual relations, and THAT is why it is immoral?

Hey now... we cant bring facts into this. remember emotion is the truth!(lol ):upsarcasm lol)

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: JoshuaCox
Actually, biologial adulthood has always meant the onset of puberty.
A simple search brings up the wikipedia article on it:

Adult - Biological Adulthood
Although few or no established dictionaries provide a definition for the two word term biological adult, the first definition of adult in multiple dictionaries includes "the stage of the life cycle of an animal after reproductive capacity has been attained".[2][3] Thus, the base definition of the word adult is the period beginning at puberty. Although this is the primary definition of the base word adult, the two word term biological adult stresses or clarifies that the original definition, based on the beginning of puberty, is being used.

If you don't trust that, feel free to check up the references it mentions: The International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, and Churchill's Medical Dictionary.

But again, to clarify further, given your new post. It seems your issue is then with whether the person would be physically harmed (organ damage or some such thing) through sexual relations, and THAT is why it is immoral?

I'm not debating your source, but I'm still calling BS.....


A 12 year old is OBVIOUSLY not a physical adult at the onset of puberty. Puberty is the starting line, Not the finish.

Also might be an issue of technical term vs implied meaning...

A scientific theory is totally different from, if I tell you my favorite conspiracy theory.

The problem I have is choice. A child entering puberty has no way to understand the ramifications of having sex.

The physical risks to a child having having sex and being pregnant at such a young age are just icing on the cake. Making it truly monsterous.

The entire point of civilization is rejecting those primal instincts that are not in the best interest of society. We can't control the fact they are their, but we can chose not to act on them.

It's what separates us from being animals.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Your choice of tense with WERE yet still arguing others as ARE is a curious thing... especially when you 20/20'D as Phage pointed out... its nice to see how such bias is so entrenched in ones belief by ones group(s) supporting such bias.

If you hop back and edit to change that context to edit, in self defense to create some plausible deniability in a child like fashion because of no personal responsibility because Im not quoting that post? May you burn in your own special place of conceptual make believe thats been posioning societies world wide for 1000s of years... accepted by that society or not.

As an atheist and not the taken over word as in church of atheism either. As in its all conceptual make believe keep it in your own back yard so the public sector meant to function on ethics and not moralistic dogma can finally be a peace against all this extremism in all it forms dragging in the streets burning anything it doesnt like and blowing eachother up in such blatant idiocracy.

Its pure madness and I personally dont care how much money or vested interests people have in creating or keeping people as useful idiots mired in any brand of ignorance. People are already talking about carrying that into space? ffs people need to get a grip on something and thats called reality.

originally posted by: ntech
The problem here is that it was 800 AD or there abouts. And the middle east. Pedophilia was still an unformed concept back then. You can't judge a historical figure by today's standards. It's a bit like giving Doc Brown from Back to the Future a speeding ticket for 90 mph.. When he was in the 1800's . Before there was a law or even public disapproval on the subject.

The problem is a lot of people who belive in Islam belive in "if its good enough for him its good enough for me"
en.wikipedia.org...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk... essor.html
www.dailymail.co.uk... void-traumatising-them.html
And the list goes on and on. I will point out not all of Islam is bad, there are many wonderful people like this man www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Thetan
Yikes, this should be interesting:

All cases of an adult having sexual relations with a nine year old child is a case of child molestation.
Muhamed was an adult who had sexual relations with nine year old child.
Therefore, Muhamed was a child molester.


This is the argument. The only way to prove the conclusion wrong is to show that one or both of the premises is false.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Well let's be fair...if you go back 700+ years , everyone's ancestors were pediaphiles. Including nearly every major figure from the bible.

Now I personally am in the camp that thinks we SHOULD NOT be excusing nor glorifying the immoral acts of previous generations.

Sure the founding fathers created America, but they were also mainly slave owning rapists.

That said I am quite sure the Jesus being transgendered is an insane stretch. About to read the site now.

According to YOUR INTERPRETATION. Biologically WHEN you hit puberty you are not a child anymore. SO its actually dishonest to call them pedophiles or child molestors.

Also Not all the founding fathers were slave owners. And Do you got any proof of them being rapist? Back that up.

You do realize you just said it was ok to have sex with a child, as long as they had entered puberty, right.....

Back in the past they were raised this way and they didnt see it as rape due to SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES. Death was very high back then. Youre not getting the distinction between Pre pubesent and pubesent.

Back in biblical times lifespans were very short due to disease,war,and social standing. To overcome the death rate it was each persons duty to procreate. Your people back then were way way smarter than todays versions. A 12 year old of intelligence back then will be mentally older if they were tested by todays standards.

You are so hung up on the laws of today you refuse to see. THEY DID NOT SCREW AROUND WITH GIRLS WHO WERE NOT BIOLOGICALLY READY BACK THEN. (caps for easy comprehension)

In MODERN TIMES though its NOT OK. but your saying it was wrong back then is just wrong because times and circumstances were not equal.

I'm hung up on laws?!?!

I'm the one saying that the law is irrelevant, and that right and wrong persist reguardless of whatever random laws were the flavor of the month....

Your the one saying since it was legal, it was cool...

We haven't needed to bang 12 year olds (some women start before then, some as young as 8 or9...some earlier than that.)
"For the survival of the species" since cave man days. Yet we continued having sex with children until what? 100/150 years ago???

So banging children for the "survival of the species" stopped 10,000 plus years ago, but it was still cool if you did last century.????


Oh and how do we know Mohammad's wife wasn't an early bloomer? According to you "if she bleeds, she breeds". So what if she had already started at 9? Then it's absolutely cool, huh?

Oh nope, it was cool for all your ancestors to rape children, but if the Muslims do it, they are evil and must be destroyed..

The hypocracy of some people is truly astounding...at least be consistent in your beliefs...

You MISSED my final sentence. I said IN MODERN TIMES its not right as in "against the law" Back in the anchient times THERE WAS NO LAWS PROHIBITING IT.

And according to most witnesses to Thomas jefferson He would not had forced his slaves to do anything they didnt want to do. Strange i know. I dont fault all of humanitys ancestors for keeping the species alive.

Also Im not advocating for muslims to die either. now terrorist can go die in a fire but average muslims are all right by me so where you claim hypocracy there is none. MOdern children are not as smart as ones from back in the past.

Modern children are lazy,weak,and woudnt know real work if they were slapped with it. Is this mean? yes it is but its true.

Also I do not appreciate your insinuation of me being OK with pedophilia. Im not. I do not fault the past peoples like you are doing because back then it wasnt a crime and as such I will not convict the dead. get off your high horse,theres a log in your eye.

Oh no I got your point, that there was no law permitting/restricting it. I just don't think it being legal excuses it....

Your the one validating pediaphiles, as long as it's legal... I just don't see how it was Ok to have sex with children then, but now it's pediaphiles. My vote is that it was always pediaphila and the laws were wrong.

Your point appears to be the opposite. That pediphilia isn't inherently bad, it requires a law to make it bad.

Laws are made by humans with personal self interest always the primary goal.

Having sex with little girls the second they get their first period, has always been pediaphila no matter the law.



Also children are not less intelligent than previous generations . They are far smarter today. IQ tests have to be scaled up nearly every year to compensate.

A 100 On the IQ test 50 years ago, would only register as a 60 or 80 today.

Every generation has thought the next were "a bunch of no good lazy and soft idiots."

Your father said that about your generation, and his father said that about his...and his before him, and so on and so on.

It's a known psychological effect. It's "the gooood ole days myth."

In reality every generation has exceeded the last. Our parents created things their grand parents couldn't imagaine, and our children will do the same.


The fact that gay people can now get married, does not trump slavery (not only American slavery, all).

The fact their are participation trophies, does not trump segregation.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

What's the point of a period?

originally posted by: imod02

originally posted by: ntech
The problem here is that it was 800 AD or there abouts. And the middle east. Pedophilia was still an unformed concept back then. You can't judge a historical figure by today's standards. It's a bit like giving Doc Brown from Back to the Future a speeding ticket for 90 mph.. When he was in the 1800's . Before there was a law or even public disapproval on the subject.

The problem is a lot of people who belive in Islam belive in "if it good enough for him its good enough for me"
en.wikipedia.org...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk... essor.html
www.dailymail.co.uk... void-traumatising-them.html
And the list goes on and on. I will point out not all of Islam is bad, there are many wonderful people like this man www.dailymail.co.uk...

Which is exactly why we shouldn't be glorifying and excusing the sins of our forefathers, and their teachings should be viewed through the prism of :

" ok that makes sense, but he also thought women were property, slavery was cool and it's was ok to have sex with 12 year olds..SOOO"


And Then maybe actually see if whatever teaching actually fits into our modern understanding of morality, or if it should be discarded...

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: JoshuaCox

What's the point of a period?

It begins to ready the body for procreation, but due to the high rate of complications encountered from a 12 year old giving birth. I think it's fair to say the process has not completed. An 18 year old would only have a fraction of the same risk...

But we also are evolutionarily designed to club our women and drag them back to our caves to rape them. We quit doing that too..

In the animal world rape is common, it's rejecting such things that separates us from the animals.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I never get the urge to club a woman.


I never get the urge to shag children either but thank you for proving my point.


1300 years ago all they would have known is that period = ready...

If that.



Not to mention the Hadith is bull# anyways.

But if we are judging 1300 year ago well I don't know what to tell you.
It's absurdist.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I'm not debating your source, but I'm still calling BS.....


A 12 year old is OBVIOUSLY not a physical adult at the onset of puberty. Puberty is the starting line, Not the finish.

Also might be an issue of technical term vs implied meaning...

A scientific theory is totally different from, if I tell you my favorite conspiracy theory.

Oh dear...this isn't going to be one of those "Evolution is just a theory" things, is it?
A biological adult, is literally, yes, defined as someone who has hit puberty. That is the definition. What you are referring to is the legal or social concept of an adult. And that has changed regularly throughout history.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
The problem I have is choice. A child entering puberty has no way to understand the ramifications of having sex.

Alright, that's fine, that is exactly what I was asking you before you shifted over to the biology of it all. So repeating my previous post, putting the point about biology behind us,

originally posted by: babloyi
Or is it that "I consider a person of age 12 today to be too immature or childish to even possibly be capable of making a decision regarding such a thing, so it must have been the same throughout history"?

Let me put it another way- if we had some magical way of knowing if a person had already hit puberty, and of sound mind to such an extent so as to be able to validly consent to marriage/sexual intercourse, would it be immoral still?

Also, as a side note, as I mentioned before, paedophilia is a psychiatric condition- a sexual attraction to prepubescent children- i.e. someone who has not yet hit puberty. This is again, the hard science, not a made up definition.

Remember though that Mohammed raped that girl before she had even reached puberty.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I literally didn't understand any of that post...maybe if you had quoted me I would understand the first paragraph, but the rest is a jumbled mess.

I rarely proof read before sending stuff, lol so I wouldn't doubt having misplaced a were or are..

I think any grown man who has had sex with a 12 year old is a pediaphile, no matter what era. No matter what country of origin. No matter what the laws were at the time..even in cave man days, with it being necessary for survival, they were still pediaphiles, they just had a way better excuse.


I would bet that through all eras, in all countries there were some who realized it was wrong and fought against it...it's just sad it took until 100 years ago for them to win.

originally posted by: amazing
Remember though that Mohammed raped that girl before she had even reached puberty.

So if he raped her the day after she started her period it would have been cool?

Is it somehow better to rape a 12 year old, rather then a ten year old???


That's what your post is saying....

originally posted by: amazing
Remember though that Mohammed raped that girl before she had even reached puberty.

DATELINE: Year: 620 (not 2016)

Consenting to consummate marriage, is not rape.

As with all women (first menstrual) of that time, this was their duty, and they knew it was their duty.

We do not know exactly how old Aisha was, as we do not know how they counted a person's age.

Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on the more detailed information available about her sister Asma estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen at the time of her marriage. en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: amazing
Remember though that Mohammed raped that girl before she had even reached puberty.

So if he raped her the day after she started her period it would have been cool?

Is it somehow better to rape a 12 year old, rather then a ten year old???


That's what your post is saying....

No. Here's my post again. Maybe this time you'll read it. "Remember though that Mohammed raped that girl before she had even reached puberty"

Now, for context, you might want to read some of the other posts in this thread rather than take random posts and pretend to twist them into whatever you want. But to help you...here's the context...

Many posts on this thread have said that it was okay in the old days (Thousands of years ago) for grown men to take young wives, especially considering the short life spans, You could die by the time you were thirty. Women were considered ready to wed when they reached puberty, because, scientifically, they are able to concieve a child and give birth.

My post pointed out that Mohammed raped that girl before she even reached puberty, therefore nullifying all those posts that tried to pass this crime off as normal for that time period.

I also used the word rape. A word that symbolizes a crime.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I'm not debating your source, but I'm still calling BS.....


A 12 year old is OBVIOUSLY not a physical adult at the onset of puberty. Puberty is the starting line, Not the finish.

Also might be an issue of technical term vs implied meaning...

A scientific theory is totally different from, if I tell you my favorite conspiracy theory.

Oh dear...this isn't going to be one of those "Evolution is just a theory" things, is it?
A biological adult, is literally, yes, defined as someone who has hit puberty. That is the definition. What you are referring to is the legal or social concept of an adult. And that has changed regularly throughout history.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
The problem I have is choice. A child entering puberty has no way to understand the ramifications of having sex.

Alright, that's fine, that is exactly what I was asking you before you shifted over to the biology of it all. So repeating my previous post, putting the point about biology behind us,

originally posted by: babloyi
Or is it that "I consider a person of age 12 today to be too immature or childish to even possibly be capable of making a decision regarding such a thing, so it must have been the same throughout history"?

Let me put it another way- if we had some magical way of knowing if a person had already hit puberty, and of sound mind to such an extent so as to be able to validly consent to marriage/sexual intercourse, would it be immoral still?

Also, as a side note, as I mentioned before, paedophilia is a psychiatric condition- a sexual attraction to prepubescent children- i.e. someone who has not yet hit puberty. This is again, the hard science, not a made up definition.

I wasn't denying evolution...it was an example of scientific term vs. layman term.

A scientific theory is a long list of experiments that lead to one definative conclusion.

A layman theory , is a bs guess I pulled out of my butt.

Both called theories, but have totally differing meanings.

You might be a biological adult by definition at the onset of puberty, but your body, mind nor sexual organs are at all fully formed.

Making some one who is scientifically an adult, nor even remotely a full grown and matured individual. Which is what people mean when they say they are an adult.