Move Over, Craigslist: Twitter Gets Prostitution Ads
from the didn't-see-this-coming dept
Craigslist has been catching a lot of flack, but Twitter might be next in line for the blame game. A British tabloid discovered that a brothel in England was using the site to advertise its services, and got a quote from a member of parliament labeling it "cynical and inappropriate". It's hard to imagine that this is the only business of its sort using Twitter to stay in touch with its customers, and it just goes to show that whatever media emerge -- from printed flyers to web sites to social-networking sites -- they'll be used to promote any sort of business, including sex-based ones. The brothel's response to the newspaper article is pretty amusing, though: a Twitter coupon, using the paper's name as the discount code. In the meantime, expect to see law enforcement officials start attacking Twitter for "enabling prostitution" in 3... 2... 1....
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: moral panic, prostitutes
Companies: craigslist, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Go Twitter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prostitution
Crap, never mind, got nothing. Why's it illegal for two consenting adults to have sex in exchange for money?
Really, it's far more expedient than taking the girl out for an (expensive!) movie and expensive dinner and the HOPING you'll get sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
1. Can break up marriages, if used by married men
2. Immoral
3. Exploitive
4. Can be "forced" or underage
I personally think that what 2 adults do is up to them, and maybe "legalization" would allow licensing, etc to come into play. Might even generate revenue for the governments involved...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
Let's see, responses to arguments:
1. So can:
Drinking
Gambling
Playing sports
Video Games
Dating
(etc. etc.)
2. So is not being hetero, or drinking, both legal.
3. As is; war, advertising, many high risk low reward occupations.
4. You mean like working in 'sweat-shops'? (Also see #3).
Nope, still no valid reasons why prostitution isn't legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
1. Marriage is an unnatural institution forced upon people by religious zealotry.
2. See #1
3. Which party amongst two consenting adults is exploiting whom, exactly?
4. Anything can be "forced" on the "underage."
Can you come up with any reasons which don't hinge upon an "all powerful" invisible person who needs your money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
-So what? I would say it is the problem of the married couple
2. Immoral
-Says who? an istitution thats based on a 2000 year old fairytale and that is famous for its child molesters?
3. Exploitive
-Then regulate it, not ban it.
4. Can be "forced" or underage
-as 3. and seriously enforce it
The world has definitly much bigger problems than this and only people who think they have to claim "moral highground" have any problems with. Those people are usulluy those wich take moral with double standards though. so, seriously which right to complain do they have ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate to the devil's advocate)
2. Your (the general you) morality doesn't define my morality.
3. Can be but not always.
4. Can be but not always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
1. Can break up marriages, if used by married men: Alcohol, men's mothers, sports franchises, the internet, gaming consoles, the wives themselves, etc.
2. Immoral: Pretty much every government and/or religion in existence, most priests/preachers
3. Exploitive: all of #2, alcohol, cigarettes, most businesses
4. Can be "forced" or underage: education, birth, vaccinations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
1. Name something which cannot be exploitative.
2. Name something which cannot be forced on the underage.
3. Name something which fulfills both 1 and 2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
2. Wet cornstarch(unless forced very gently)
3. Is #2 exploitative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
4. When legalized prostitution can be controlled and there is less scope for exploitation of children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prostitution (Playing devil's advocate)
2. Your (the general you) morality doesn't define my morality. Thank you, AC
3. Not necessarily.
4. You could use that to argue anything can be forced on the underage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prostitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prostitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prostitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesus Would Do WHO???
I work in health care. We have NO CLUE, and all science can do is pile up hypothesis upon unproven hypothesis upon unproven speculation.
I am not saying science is not valid. There is good science, and there is bad science.
Darwin didn't prove anything regarding evolution, he only proved that (existing) species can adapt and vary.
Name ONE (just one) NEW LIFE FORM that you can prove, not speculate about. The existence of skeletons from a time even older than "the fairy tale" doesn't count because YOU WEREN'T THERE AND CAN'T PROVE A THING...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
The gov hated him, he hung out with his posse all flaunting laws--as in flagrantly violating in a willy-nilly fashion. He regularly spent time with prostitutes... He had this gang that followed him around and did stuff for him. Serious, JC the OG.
If this JC guy existed today--he'd be rotting in jail or selling marijuana while healing AIDS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
He didn't "hang out" with prostitutes. Only one is mentioned in the New Testament, and what he didn't do was JUDGE her.
Jesus didn't need MJ, he was already HIGH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Do some more research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
1. Mary Magdelene, not proven to be a prostitute. The church points to two passages to say that she is, one which translates to something about her wearing her hair loose and another referring to her only as a sinner, without the sin specified. Most often, the translation is actually alot closer to "Mary Magdalene, a non-Jew", indicating she practiced a different faith, which is what the Gnostics that believe Christ fornicated w/her partly get that idea
2. Modern Christianity is based on the prophecy of St. Paul, who claimed he was visited by God in a dream/vision that told him Christ died for our sins. That's it. Until that time, Christ the Messiah wasn't supposed to DIE, he was supposed to vanquish the current regime. In fact, the word Messiah did not translate to "son of god" or "savior" in its original form. It would more closely tranlsate to something like "warrior king"
3. You have dismissed things in history because YOU WEREN'T THERE AND CAN'T PROVE A THING, and yet you're a CHRISTIAN????!!!! I don't have a problem with people having whatever faith they like, but it HAS to be rooted in some kind of reliable logic, and yours contradicts itself. The Bible is no more proof of existence than the bones of animals past, arguable less so, since what is commonly referred to as the Bible is a set of texts hand picked during the council of Nicaea (spelling varies), which went out of its way to ignore the gnostic texts.
You do your faith a diservice when you don't argue intelligently. I beg you to profess your ideals in pallitable way, otherwise Christianity, which does plenty of good things, will be rejected even more roundly than it already is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Why is it acceptable to discount God, but not unproven science?
Carbon dating has its problems with samples over a few thousand years old.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Like medical science and evolutionary theories, it's an extrapolation based on the facts as we have them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
I asked you to name one example. No one ever has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
I don't understand the question. Are you asking for one new life form since man began recording history? Or one new life form since I've been alive? Please clarify the time frame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
I'm not talking about a mutation, genetic abberation or external manipulation such as dog-breeding.
I'm talking about a new, theretofor unexistant form of life created by this Evolution theory. One where NO genetic matter was turned into life. (Not an existing egg was fertilized with an existing sperm which resulted in a different or new "breed")
In 30 years of my asking this question, NOT ONE example has ever been given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
"Three bacterial colonies, namely, PVAS-1, B3 W22 and B8 W22 were, however, totally new species" and "While the present study does not conclusively establish the extra-terrestrial origin of microorganisms, it does provide positive encouragement to continue the work in our quest to explore the origin of life"
Indicates that this form of life was previously non-existent on Earth. Readings from Genesis I believe would directly conflict w/these findings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Those don't prove Creationism. They only prove existence. I'm assuming you were speaking out of passion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
"While the present study does not conclusively establish the extra-terrestrial origin of microorganisms, it does provide positive encouragement to continue the work in our quest to explore the origin of life."
The fallacy is: while we were previously unaware of this species, our ignorance of its existence does not prove that it came from somewhere else. It just proves that we didn't know of its existence.
But it is SOOOOOO COOL to think that it came from "Outer Space" isn't it?
Next year, these "findings" will be represented as "fact" supporting the next supposition that "provides positive encouragement" for those determined to find "facts" that support the "conclusion" they wish to arrive at.
Once again, the bacteria didn't appear out of nowhere. It came from previously existing genetic material. It is NOT a new life form, it is a mutation or adaptation of an existing life form.
The atmosphere wasn't striken by lightning creating new life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
"Should"
"Seem"
Not very scientific words. But again, next year they will be repeated as "Confirmed", "Proved", and "Demonstrated" or some such...
All it points to is how little we know. All it points to is that we've not before studied the atmosphere in this way. Nothing in this article proves that they are "new" and nothing in the article disproves that they haven't been in the atmosphere since Creation : )
But you will believe what you want to believe because you already had made up your mind so the "facts" fit what you want to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
B. I have a problem with people who propose religion as an answer but seem to be confused/uninformed as to some of the facts/readings/beliefs of that religion. You referred to the Magdalene as a prostitue previously, when there is little to no indication that she was one. I'm no scholar, but I'm fairly read up on Christian theory and dissenting theories, and I'm consistently amazed at how few "believers" know their own religion. When I couple that with what seems to me to be a control mechanism called organized religion, it makes me very angry.
For instance, when I hear people say that there is no evidence that the Vatican aided/abetted Nazis, it scares me how much people fall for Church propoganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
I personally think that the Roman Catholic Church was hijacked by Satan a long, long time ago. I would point to the adaptation of pagan celebrations (Ashtar=Easter=Spring Solstice; Germanic St. Nicholas=Christmas; etc) as evidence of Satan misleading humanity away from God.
We'll never settle this here, and I am astounded that it has gotten as much discourse as it has. I applaud you for your willingness to explore alternatives!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
And you cannot prove it is more than a Fairytale because YOU WEREN'T THERE AND CAN'T PROVE A THING...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
I don't believe that lightning struck a primordial ooze and amoebas were formed, let alone anything more complex. Evolutionists and Champions of Science stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the incredible confluence of luck, happenstance and childhood wonder it would take to make their theories reality.
And you question MY sanity and faith...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Scientists can determine the age of a sample due to the occurrence of radioactive decay. It's just an exponential equation.. Algebra 2 stuff.
YOU WEREN'T THERE AND CAN'T PROVE A THING
We can play this game alllllll day. I'VE NEVER BEEN TO CHICAGO SO IT DOESN'T EXIST!
Why would an omnipresent being, creator of all things, put us here +2000 years ago, then leave behind the remains of other organisms that existed before us? To trip us up? Make us go astray?
Or the more logical conclusion would be that they were there before us, natural selection occurred, they couldn't survive, and that's why we find their remains.
DAMN I couldn't resist going off topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Actually, this is correct. As those of us who live here know, we are now called "Obamaville".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
The great lie of Darwin was to "extrapolate" what he did prove (Natural Selection) into what is NOT proven and has no factual basis (Evolution).
I didn't say that Chicago (or something 10,000 years ago) didn't exist. I said that the supposed "proof" is nothing more than speculation based on unprovable speculation. Kinda like, "with all those Obama supporters in Chicago, there must not be any Republicans in Illinois".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
I never never never mentioned evolution. I mentioned NATURAL SELECTION. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. GARRRR!
See, now you got me internet-yelling and everything.
I didn't say that Chicago (or something 10,000 years ago) didn't exist. I said that the supposed "proof" is nothing more than speculation based on unprovable speculation
Please, explain to me how, in your little world, the F*CKING BONES of ANIMALS that lived BEFORE WE DID is SPECULATION. We can find the AGE of the BONES through SCIENTIFIC MEANS grounded in reality, then we extrapolate, as someone mentioned before.
"with all those Obama supporters in Chicago, there must not be any Republicans in Illinois".
That is some God-awful speculation. Where in your given set of data, something easily procurable online, does it say Illinois is VOID of Republicans? Nowhere.
Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Sweet Jesus, if only that were true. Then we'd just have to get the Democrats out as well, and us free thinking people that don't ascribe our politics to roving nat'l gangs might finally have a decent place to live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
I'm not sure if I understand your point as you meant it, but what I'm pulling out of your post, is that we have no idea what went on thousands of years ago, and never will because we can't prove anything. We have no idea how the world started, and likely never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
I'm just pointing out the fallacy in the Evolution argument. The "proofs" are nothing more than speculation that turned into fact over time. Kinda like what some think about the Bible.
You say to-may-to, I'll say to-mah-toe. Neither of us can "prove" the other wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Scientific theories gave us electricity, the internet, antibiotics, machines, transportation, etc. Religious theories haven't given us shit. There may be a higher power out there, but denouncing the scientific method for being less than omnipotent and subsequently providing Jesus as an alternative is asinine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Careful w/those types of generalizations. I generally agree w/you, but there have been SOME scientific experiments that correlate w/SOME instances in the bible (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/comments/allreviews.html). It should be noted that this astronomy software used to predict the Shekinah's appearence was also done by non-believer scientists, not just Christian scholars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
My case is proven by your use of the word "hypothesis".
My point is that you can't discount the Bible for "lack of proof" and then excuse science for the same lack . If the Bible is "just a bunch of words", then how is science anything more? It's pitiful mankind's attempt to describe the vast, complex world in which he lives. How presumptuous of mankind to assume that they are on the top of the heap!
It's the compounding of the hypothetical and the muddling of the difference between theory and reality that occurs over time that leads to fallacy in science.
Scientific theories REVEALED these things (electricity, antibiotics, etc). They weren't created by science, they were discovered and exploited by science.
Electricity, in the form of lightning is what supposedly kick-started life in the primordial ooze. So Science predates life???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Science is a method used to create and update a general model of the universe, thereby allowing us to predict future results given a number of variables. It is based upon millions or billions of controlled observations from people across thousands of years--observations that can be recreated today. Like I said, the Bible is a static book of words from a time when the Church believed the rest of the universe to revolve around the Earth(not long after most believed the Earth to be flat), and that everything was made of some combination of earth, fire, wind, and water. And for somebody that thinks so little of mankind's search for knowledge, that doesn't say much for your scientific enthusiasm.
It's the compounding of the hypothetical and the muddling of the difference between theory and reality that occurs over time that leads to fallacy in science.
Even gravity, possibly the most accepted and indisputed of all scientific theories, is still called a "theory". Point me to a scientific construct referred to as a "proof".
Scientific theories REVEALED these things (electricity, antibiotics, etc). They weren't created by science, they were discovered and exploited by science.
That's precisely what I said; science forms theories based on observable phenomena. We understood them as a result of watching, hypothesizing, and experimenting, thus allowing us to utilize that understanding to power things like light bulbs. We didn't have light bulbs back in the Middle Ages now...did we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
There are theories about what Gravity is and why it manifests, but Gravity is an observable fact.
Millions and Billions observe Gravity on a daily basis. Those who may someday be lucky (or unlucky???) enough to visit Jupiter or Saturn might make some different observations than those we make here on Earth.
Science is not static because as we learn more, we tend to have to discard previous "truths" because new "truths" disprove the previous "truths".
The Bible is static because Good is Good and Bad is Bad. Paint stripes on a snake and it'll still bite your ass.
Again, you support my point that science misrepresents Theory as Fact. Sun revolves around Earth is replaced by Earth revolves around Sun.
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
Please see the cited sections under "Anomalies and Discrepencies" as well as "Alternative Theories"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
The first sentence of that article is:
"Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another."
My point, exactly. It is a natural phenomenon. It is observable, demonstrable.
Mankind has postulated "THEORIES" to try to explain it. You didn't mean to, but you help make my case. As we learn more about our universe, we have to recognize "Anomalies and Descrepancies" and argue about "Alternative Theories" because we, in the first place, presumed we knew "all about it" and proclaimed a Theory as "The Way It Is"...
Peace, brother, I've got to go home and help God by watering the wonderful species he created with which I've populated my home environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Theories aren't laws, they are only hypotheses that have observable and measurable evidence but can still be disproven.
It's not "Darwin's Law", it's "Darwin's *THEORY*".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
Makes perfect sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jesus Would Do WHO???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obey the LAW!
Transitive law says that any time while doing the deed is prostitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inappropriate Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the funny part...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope
Only back to about 57,000 years or so. The half life is unmeasurable after that. Anything older that is "Dated" is speculation and inference using estimates, and "accepted" dating standards, like the various dinosaur ages, which were themselves completely made up, then revised several times since Darwin so as to push the ages even further back, arbitrarily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pornography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pornography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
You do know that Carbon dating isn't the only form of dating right ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_d ating_methods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also
Also, no mutation has ever, ever, EVER in the history of science led to an IMPROVEMENT genetically. Mutations are always regressive. You cant "mutate" your way into a new kind of animal. Adaptation is not mutation also, before all you EvoNazi's chime in.
In all the vast genetic and geologic record, with all the thousands of samples of hundreds of thousands of different kinds of animals, NOT ONE PROVABLE INSTANCE of a transition animal has been discovered. That alone casts evolution as origin in doubt. It's as statistically unlikely that this hasnt been found, as it is that we are alone in the universe. Not likely. Therefore, there is some other answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also
You do realize that bacteria constantly mutates improving it chances of survival, and these changes are something that we have actually observed.. One extreme example is mutations have allowed some harmful bacteria to become resistant to various antibiotics. There are many, many examples of mutations in bacteria over the past hundred years or so, many of which enhanced bacteria’s chances of survival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Also
None of these bacteria represent "NEW" life. There was life in the bacteria that mutated into a different bacteria.
That's a LONG LONG way from "lightning strikes primordial ooze" leading to life without prior life.
As complex as the systems of life are; and Man being the ultimate (or at least the most complex, thinking) expression of life, given how LITTLE we know and have any control over, why is it so hard to accept the possiblility of a higher power who created this universe which we call home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Also
You don't accept that life was created randomly, then what came before and created your god?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Also
That something as complex as life happened by chance is just illogical.
God was not created. He was, and always will be. That statement is no more illogical than yours.
My God created your God. And he will cast him into the eternal bottomless pit : )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also 2
Once again, and I already covered this, you are talking about an adaptation. It is still a bacterium. It has not mutated into SOMETHING ELSE. Adaptation != mutation or evolution. Any true mutation is always destructive, never an improvement.
Get your premises right before you chime in next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also 2
Because there was a mutation in some bacterium that occurred during cell division---a mutation that it passed on in subsequent divisions allowing its descendants to survive where others did not. The adaptation is the natural selection that favors the cells with the mutation. And obviously, it was a beneficial one here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Also 2
What we disagree on is whether this adaptation constitues a NEW life form. It is an adaptation of existing life, i.e., it had "parents". It did not appear out of non-living non-genetic material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I knew Twitter was good for something. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also 2
Once again, you are confusing mutation with adaptation. Cancer is a mutation, are you going to tell me that is a beneficial mutation? Come on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cipher-0 (emphasis on the "Zero")
Yes, that makes PERFECT sense over a creator-being....thats a MUCH BETTER explanation....
'Tard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cipher-0 (emphasis on the "Zero")
Does that automatically mean I should accept the equally unproven hypothesis of creationism or intelligent design?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cipher-0 (emphasis on the "Zero")
Please.
So your contention is that the universe was created by an all-powerful all-knowing being who came down to us in the form of a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father who can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
QFT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cipher-0 (emphasis on the "Zero")
Yes, lets do. Since thats exactly what it is. Evolution is as much a belief system as any other.
"Does that automatically mean I should accept the equally unproven hypothesis of creationism or intelligent design?"
Only if you are an unthinking nincompoop who thinks every argument is a zero-sum game. In this regard, you and evolutionists AND creationists are all in the same boat: you blame the other side of EXACTLY THE SAME THING that you yourself exhibit: its a belief system, it requires faith, you deny any other arguments, and harshly criticize anyone who doesnt believe what YOU believe and accuse them of being idiots. BOTH SIDES do this, so yes, that means you too (whoever you are).
You should never "automatically" accept ANYTHING. Learn. Question. Form opinions and beliefs. Dont just assume you will always be right, and dont just assume everyone else is always wrong. The universe is bigger than you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cipher-0 (emphasis on the "Zero")
I said: "Does that automatically mean I should accept the equally unproven hypothesis of creationism or intelligent design?"
You responded: Only if you are an unthinking nincompoop who thinks every argument is a zero-sum game.
That wasn't even remotely the point. The point was that you're calling evolution as totally untested and not science, yet apparently believe something that's totally untested and not science.
At best, it's substituting one unproven for another. At worst, it's hypocritical.
Your assertion, in referring to the fossil record, that YOU WEREN'T THERE AND CAN'T PROVE A THING... doesn't actually help your case whatsoever. You weren't there for the acts of Jesus, yet seem to be fine believing the stories in the bible, some of which were written centuries after the fact.
You should never "automatically" accept ANYTHING. Learn. Question. Form opinions and beliefs. Dont [sic] just assume you will always be right, and dont [sic] just assume everyone else is always wrong. The universe is bigger than you.
I do precisely that. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion in the face of being presented with facts and evidence. It's my opinion that there's a lot more evidence for evolution than for creationism.
Let me say in closing: Your ad-hominem attack was utterly unjustified. If you want to argue facts and perception, I'm fine with that. If all you want to resort to personal attacks, you can shove it up your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cipher-0 (RE-emphasis on the "ZERO")
Yeah how about that? Wow. especially considering I didnt say even indicate half the stuff he told me to shove up my ass.
Wow where to begin....
"That wasn't even remotely the point. The point was that you're calling evolution as totally untested and not science, yet apparently believe something that's totally untested and not science."
Yes it rather IS the point. First, I never said evolution wasnt science or even untested. I just said its not NECESSARILY how we came to be, and there is AMPLE evidence to the contrary. And that not believing in evolution doesnt AUTOMATICALLY mean a belief in creation. Whether we were created by God, or aliens, or some other way IS the point, which in your zeal to defend your faith, you completely missed so you could attack the wrong point. Good job!
"Your assertion, in referring to the fossil record, that YOU WEREN'T THERE AND CAN'T PROVE A THING... doesn't actually help your case whatsoever."
And didnt I JUST POINT OUT that BOTH SIDES use the SAME arguments against the other? THIS APPLIES IN ALL CASES GENIUS. It doesnt "prove" anything. It doesnt help your case either, and in fact it makes a case for evolution being a type of faith even stronger.
"I do precisely that. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion in the face of being presented with facts and evidence. It's my opinion that there's a lot more evidence for evolution than for creationism."
Patently false. I can tell you right now that if God himself came down in a big huge cloud that you would find some way to rationalize it away so you can cling to your safe belief in evolution so you dont have to have faith in anything else.
"Let me say in closing: Your ad-hominem attack was utterly unjustified. If you want to argue facts and perception, I'm fine with that. If all you want to resort to personal attacks, you can shove it up your ass."
Why thank you for the offer, but I usually get $500 for that, so I'll pass today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You WILL find out...
What part of "I was here before all, and will remain after all is gone" do you not understand?
Everything your Science probes, measures, postulates upon, theorizes about, was put in place by ME. You silly, silly humans: it is a Good Thing that my love is everlasting.
I realize that Satan is encouraging you to be such rebellious children. No soup for you tonight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You WILL find out...
My God doesn't mis-capitalize his/her words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You WILL find out...
- Rene Descartes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evolution vs Creation
Fossil record points to evolution, but also points to creation in that there are several holes that 'should' be filled. Astronomy gives us an age of the universe based on light distances, but also gives us the Earth's degrading condition. (Billions of years go, the Earth was closer to the sun, and the sun was alot larger. The moon wasn't present, so neither were the tides.) Science manages to both tout and dispute evolution. Which is why it's a theory. (Also that it isn't demonstrable or repeatable. Neither is Creation.)
One thing that science is full of is Major Breakthroughs when someone throws away a pre-conceived notion to try a different way of doing things.
Religion makes a habit of being unexplainable. Mostly because if you can explain it perfectly, everyone would follow it, so of what merit is belief in that situation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]