Which is right: evolution or creation?

Jump to Last Post 1-18 of 18 discussions (96 posts)

56
Obscure_Treasuresposted 11 years ago
plz tell me
reply report
1. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution is about what happens to lifeforms over time. Creationism is about the creation of lifeforms.
  
  There are many different creation stories from the various religions in the world. Do we look at each one separately or toss them altogether into a salad?
  reply report
2. 63
  Greek Oneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Creavolution...
  
  Divinely created evolution
  reply report
3. 59
  Lindy's Worldposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It is both creation and evolution. God got the ball rolling and let things evolve on their own.
  reply report
4. 0
  jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Neither, the question is wrong!
  reply report
61
TMMasonposted 11 years ago
Either one, Evolution or creation, takes faith to believe.

So look into them both and make a decision for yourself.
reply report
1. 59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution does take SOME faith to believe:
  
  You need to have faith that "When I see macroevolution happen, it is macroevolution" (to see macroevolution, get some fruit flies and mess with their environment for some 100 generations).
  
  You need to have faith that "All those fossils that I see and can touch can be properly dated to a pretty specific time period" (You can easily learn how to do your own forms of dating by simply researching how they do it)
  
  You need to have faith that "All those people who ACTUALLY USE EVOLUTION ON A DAILY BASIS are using evolution on a daily basis".
  
  Basically, in order to "believe" in Evolution, you simply need to have "faith" that 'what you see and touch and do is actually what you see and touch and do"
  
  In order to believe in creationism, you need to believe that a giant invisible guy in the sky (no, not THAT giant invisible guy in the sky, nor the other 500,000, THIS SPECIFIC giant invisible guy in the sky) created the entire universe in a way that makes what you see and touch and do are NOT what you see and touch and do.
  
  So... the choice is yours.
  reply report
76
Eaglekiwiposted 11 years ago
Creation.

Although sometimes the way people jump up and down sure makes a good case for Evolution
reply report
1. 59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah...
  
  ... y'know...
  
  ....Billions upon billions of fossils that all correctly correlate with the theory of evolution perfectly....
  
  In order to disprove evolution, all you would have to do is properly date a fossil to a time when the animal/plant shouldn't exist.
  
  It's that easy.
  
  But it's never happened.
  reply report
  76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think..
  
  Half of the equation is correct.
  
  Fossils show evidence...then man ,scientist palentologist, all the 'gist' people I will call them step in and in their great wisdom analyse, predict ,foretell, and categorise.
  
  Some I might add diligently research to their best of their ability.
  
  But I ask you this, where do they get this information. Are they not just building on another persons theories?
  
  God creates
  
  Man discovers and defines.
  reply report
  59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  God can create all he wishes - that means that you disbelieve Abiogenesis.
  
  But Evolution could easily co-exist with "god creates"
  reply report
  76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yep
  
  Abiogenesis.
  
  Starts off making sense ,then.....whoosh out left field
  
  I remain agnostic.
  Too many ifs and maybe's,and still limited understanding.
  reply report
  59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  fossils exist.
  
  Look at them.
  
  Evolution happens.
  
  Abiogenesis has yet to be proven, however there are mounds of evidence building.
  reply report
  60
  Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think ancient Jewish myth about how life was created in 7 days in a plush garden stocked with the tree of knowledge and a talking snake makes much better sense than evelution includeing the science of geology, palentology, astromomy, DNA, etc, etc. lol
  reply report
2. 59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, and before you start saying things like "dating techniques are false", please acknowledge the following statement.
  
  IF you "believe" that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic bombs; and you believe that the fallout from nuclear meltdowns will last millions of years... then you HAVE to believe that radio-carbon dating (and other systems) are accurate.
  reply report
89
Sneha Sunnyposted 11 years ago
without any doubt,....... Evolution....
reply report
61
Stump Parrishposted 11 years ago
Debating creationists is so easy, even a cave man could do it.
reply report
1. 76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ..Wise men still seek Him
  reply report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, wise men do not still seek "him". But, nice try.
  reply report
  76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wise Men Still Seek Him
  Matthew 2:1-12
  
  Nice try Cags
  reply report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If a wise man/woman seeks "him", then they are not wise to begin with.
  reply report
  76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hey you got something correct!!
  
  You are indeed right.
  reply report
  89
  Sneha Sunnyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  him?? god??
  reply report
  76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Both of them are right
  reply report
  89
  Sneha Sunnyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  lol..
  reply report
76
Cagsilposted 11 years ago
Which is right: evolution or creation?

That depends on what you're attempting to figure out.
reply report
1. 59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Creationists, like Economists, are ever so clever.
  
  Are they doing real science
  or just confirming their bias?
  reply report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And, your point with regards to addressing my post?
  Again, your point?
  
  My post didn't say yes or no, to either, but your post seems to be assuming I am on the side of "creationists"? And, would be a poor assumption.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe, but you did say, "That depends on what you're attempting to figure out" which implies you must know of something that can be figured out using creationism as the foundation or process.
  
  What would that be exactly?
  reply report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I did say "that depends on what you're attempting to figure out", which was directed at the OP. That doesn't imply that I had anything to add to it. It is what it said. Don't interpret my sentences, you will do more harm than good.
  
  The statement you replied to, is a statement to someone who isn't the OP, but did imply "creationists, like economists, are ever so clever", creationist was my position.
  
  Again, not you.
  
  Now, to address, the post you did reply to? I've quoted it over.
  Below:
  This statement doesn't imply anything, except that Evan made a poor assumption. That's it. If you read something into the statement, then blame yourself.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No one interrupted you, Cagsil. You came, you sound bited and then you vanished. No one is doing more harm to your posts than yourself. Having nothing to add to your sound bites is actually the issue here. You still haven't explained what it is we can figure out with creationism? Or, will it be like so many of your other posts where you really didn't have anything to say at all but felt it necessary to drop a sound bite that makes no sense?
  reply report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Again, putting words out in thin air that didn't exist to begin with. I didn't say you interrupted me or did anyone else.
  I cannot vanish. I am a member.
  Assumption is the mother of all F* ups.
  It wasn't a sound bite as you say. I simply made a statement, which was at the OP, which hasn't been addressed by the OP.
  You'd be correct. If it really matters, nothing good comes from "creationism".
  My statement made sense, maybe not to you, but then again, I'm not even sure you have a point for being on HP? Then again, it actually doesn't matter.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Finally, you are beginning to explain yourself. However, whether good or nothing good comes from creationism, it still doesn't explain what can be figured out with creationism. That was your claim.
  
  If it made sense, there would no inquiries from anyone here. Note that there were inquiries.
  
  Whether you envision a point for me being here or not, or if you thought it didn't matter is neither here nor there, but it certainly did help in exposing some who pretend to know what they're talking about.
  reply report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What is the optimum word I used. I just explained that "what" with regards to creationism that nothing can be explained. Or did you not get that?
  
  Untrue. There are plenty of ignorant people in the world, who have nothing better to do, but to butt into other people's lives. Thus, since they do not know their place in life or in this world, they must intrude into other people's lives, just to make themselves feel better.
  It's still out whether or not, you do. But, be that as it may, it no longer concerns me. Enjoy.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So, now you're saying nothing can be explained with creationism. Some backpedaling there.
  
  Why would you want to go to all that trouble just to make yourself feel better? Seems egotistical.
  
  Is it really? Has it gone to committee? Is there a vote?
  reply report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No backpedaling anywhere. My original statement stated that it depended on what the OP was trying to figure out. When you asked me to clarify what exactly creationism can figure out, I said nothing. You seem to be interpreting words not said.
  Again, interpretation and wrong. Nice twist job.
  I'm glad to see you enjoy making a mockery of yourself.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not at all, when you stated that it depends on what the person is trying to figure out, that immediately implies creationism can be used to figure something out. There would be no point in you saying that if nothing can be figured out using creationism, which is what you're now saying. That's why it's backpedaling.
  
  Oh, was that meant for me?
  
  I'm quite sure that's what you believe, that's why you have yet to move past step #1.
  reply report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  WOW! What a bad assumption on your part.
  Actually, you would be incorrect. But, don't expect you to see it.
  No, it was a generalized statement on my experience with dealing with people.
  I don't believe it. Your own actions have proven it.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You haven't shown that. Stating it doesn't make it valid especially when we can easily see you backpedaled. That's just how a child would respond.
  
  Yeah, sure it was.
  report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Let's see if you can understand this?
  
  Depends on what needs to be figured it out? The choices were to come from "evolution" and/or "creationism". The object was to used one or both, to figure outsomething? That something is NOT stated. Got it?
  
  Your assumption is that the "something" can be explained by creationism and that I was going to explain that "something".
  
  Error on your part. Got it?
  
  No backpedaling, as you put it. I explained that "creationism" cannot explain anything or will explain nothing, which is how I responded to you, when you asked "what"(something) could be explained through using "creationism".
  
  I realize you have a comprehension problem and I realize where and why you have it, but it is unfortunate that you do not. I have explained it in other posts, but it's your refusal to learn, which is why it escapes you.
  And, your statement here implies that I wasn't be truthful. So, with that said- You can take your beliefs, opinion, and whatever else you feel obligated to share with the rest of the community, and put it in your pipe and smoke it. Again, you are no longer my concern. I do hope you enjoy your time on HP and do get around to writing something. Good bye.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! It's funny how you believe you actually explain things when you don't explain anything at all. It's just like your "What God" question in which you dug a mile wide crater for yourself and kept digging rather than just put aside the inflated ego and admit the obvious. That's what you do here.
  
  That is backpedaling because it is not the same claim you originally made.
  
  Petty insults only provide more evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about and can only resort to them when you have been caught red handed trolling and baiting.
  
  You have yet to be truthful about anything. Your "What God" question followed up with that whopper of a tale would show that in spades.
  
  LOL! I have written something, and what I've written here has exposed a fraud and childish pretender who can't move beyond his ego.
  report
  59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nah, I was just goofing around with ya.
  reply report
95
wildernessposted 11 years ago
If you are questioning the creation of life you must remember that evolution does not address the question at all.

If you are questioning the evolution of one species to another then creation does not address the question except that all species were created simultaneously which we know to be false. Creation does not acknowledge that one species can become another in any manner - it does not say yes or no.

As far as the two "theories" do coincide, evolution has mountains of irrefutable evidence to support its claim that species evolve while creation has the written word of ONE millenia old book from beyond the dark ages to support it.
reply report
83
kerrygposted 11 years ago
Creationism and evolution do not technically contradict each other, unless you want to believe the literal version with the Earth being created 6000 years ago. If you accept that Genesis is a metaphor, then you can easily argue that God started and guided the process of evolution over billions, not thousands, of years. Most sensible Christians do, including many scientists. It's only the fundamentalists who persist in believing that an omniscient, immortal being would be less capable of employing a little bit of creative metaphor when explaining advanced science to a bunch of illiterate Bronze Age shepherds than a typical ya vampire romance novelist.

That said, I'm personally agnostic about both God's involvement in creation and evolution and the existence of God him/her/itself. I don't think it contradicts the known science to suggest that a god or gods may have played a role, but I don't think supernatural involvement was necessary, either.
reply report
1. 89
  Bubblegum Senpaiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Someone here has common sense
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Common sense is highly overrated!
  reply report
0
klarawieckposted 11 years ago
We don't know what came first... the chicken? the egg? But either one must have come from somewhere, it didn't mysteriously evolve from a toad overnight... so yes, I'd say at one point one of the two was created by a higher life force.
reply report
1. 83
  kerrygposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, the transition from amphibians (~400 mya) to reptiles (~300 mya) to birds (~150 mya) took about 250 million years, so it could not really be said to be overnight.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, alright... but the question still remains... which came first? chicken or egg?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Define "egg" please, in terms of single celled, asexually reproducing, organism? Failing that, we must assume that the "chicken" (although not a real chicken) came first.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  Definition from Dictionary.com
  
  1. the roundish reproductive body produced by the female of certain animals, as birds and most reptiles, consisting of an ovum and its envelope of albumen, jelly, membranes, egg case, or shell, according to species.
  
  2. such a body produced by a domestic bird, especially the hen.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ??? Do you mean than an amoeba like creature produced eggs?
  
  First you must evolve to where the animal can produce such a thing. Perhaps a fishy thing with small, very simple eggs little more than a human egg that simply squirts them out everywhere.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Then explain this to me...
  
  reply report
  56
  OutWestposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That is one big cock!
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Now boys... don't get all worked up now... it's not a contest!
  reply report
  56
  OutWestposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  @klarawieck
  They are males, wired for competition lol
  reply report
  56
  OutWestposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  For competing for you women.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  OK. Another reason for the chicken to run from a rooster.
  reply report
  59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Were you aware that mammals have and lay eggs?
  
  The eggs just don't get farther than the womb.
  
  Anyway, the egg clearly outdates the chicken.
  
  But if you're asking did the chicken's egg predate the chicken, then the answer is obviously no - a chicken can't lay a chicken's egg until after the chicken was created.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  AHA! You said CREATED!
  reply report
  59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  her der
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. I think Kerry nailed it below; a gamete suffered a mutation and something that wasn't quiiiite a chicken "created" (word used just for Klara ) the very first egg destined to become a chicken.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The egg, of course! As shown in Kerry's post, the reptile laid a mutated-or evolved for those not into creationism-egg which contained the first ancestor of today's poor excuse for a chicken.
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Poor excuse?! How could you say such things! You have obviously never tasted my Cordon Bleu Chicken!
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wow! I've never observed a bleu chicken before, KW! Are they raised in arctic climates?
  reply report
  83
  kerrygposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The egg came first.
  
  One species turns into another over time as more and more genetic mutations build up in the gene pool. The genetic mutations would occur during meiosis in the reproductive organs of one or both parents, but the embroys in the eggs would be the first individuals of the species to actually express the mutations and therefore would be the first to actually be the new species once sufficient mutations piled up.
  
  In other words, the egg is 100% chicken, the bird that laid it only 99.99999999999999999% chicken.
  reply report
0
Sherlock221bposted 11 years ago
It depends what you mean by "right." If you mean which gives your life a meaning, and the possibility of an afterlife, then I would go for creation. This belief has the advantage of not needing any evidence to support it, so you will not have to put in the research or look objectively at the evidence. All you are required to do with this belief, is to say 'I believe.'

If by "right," you mean, which one is supported by very real evidence, then evolution is the one to go for. However, this will necessarily rule out the need for a creator and the hope that this offers for an afterlife. People, who cannot come-to-terms with reality usually opt for creationism. This provides their lives with a meaning that may not be available to those who accept only the evidence that evolution is fact.
reply report
60
www.lookseenowposted 11 years ago
Not evolution, because no transitional forms have ever been found in the fossil records.
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No god fossils either, for that matter.
  reply report
2. 0
  Sherlock221bposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No transitional fossils found? Not true, I'm afraid.
  
  http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
  reply report
3. 61
  TMMasonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  They only accept the science that they can twist into some form of assumptive evidence for their faith and belief in Evolution.
  
  We have been through the fossil record BS, and the DNA BS, and all the rest, and still they claim it proves something.
  
  Which it does... it proves that it takes a lot of faith to believe in Human Evolution as espoused by the Atheist left.
  
  And as to there being transitional fossils in the record... there are not.
  
  and this sums up the validity of the so called evidence... "current best educated guess"
  reply report
  0
  klarawieckposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  TM, I'm sure you'd love to read more about this rooster. His name is Obama. http://www.gunslot.com/pictures/raising-chickens
  reply report
  0
  Sherlock221bposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So, I am to make my mind up, by comparing the evidence of professional scientists on the one hand, who after 150 years of fossil collecting, have built up a huge amount of evidence for evolution, and on the other, a Christian fundamentalist, who says 'God done it.' I'm sorry Mason, but this choice is easy.
  reply report
  61
  TMMasonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Actually you don't have to believe anything Sherl.
  
  I will repeat it again for the umpteenth time, evolution within a species exists, for modifications and adaptations, but that does not equate to the over-arching theory you all try to push.
  
  That is very simple.
  
  And all the "evidence" you all pull out is open to varied interpretation. And many in the fields of science do not agree with the current evolutionary biologist's interpretation BS.
  
  And we have all had this coversation before... so what is the point?
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOL Liars for Jesus. Wot "evidence" u got innit?
  reply report
  59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Explain to me how "Digging up a fossil and dating it with half-lifes" is BS.
  
  Explain to me how "Finding out that 97% of the DNA of other primates is the same as the human DNA" is BS.
  
  Explain to me "there are documented cases of observed speciation" is BS.
  
  Explain to me how the following images of fossils of missing links are BS:
  
  And finally:
  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xjcwwA-nj8k/T … ls-win.jpg
  reply report
  0
  Sherlock221bposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Don't start bringing evidence into the argument, it will only confuse the simple-minded.
  reply report
  76
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  59
  Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Did you guys see the last link?
  reply report
  61
  moneycopposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  good buddy ryt question ..missing links..i like it..i had mentioned the same.
  reply report
61
Stump Parrishposted 11 years ago
Hey, we got chickens that lay blue eggs and the rooster always comes before the egg does.
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ha! Do you know why a chicken runs away from the rooster?
  reply report
61
Stump Parrishposted 11 years ago
I'll bite, why does the chicken run from the rooster
reply report
1. 59
  Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So the other chickens won't think she's a whore!
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Here's the answer I gave on the other page, Stump.
  reply report
61
Stump Parrishposted 11 years ago
That man has a huge Cock...............................................................................................................................................a doodle doo
reply report
61
Stump Parrishposted 11 years ago
Thats good cause I think that bird has me beat
reply report
61
Stump Parrishposted 11 years ago
Sorry got distracted, go ahead Randy, I'm biting again.
reply report
0
Home Girlposted 11 years ago
Evolution or creation?

reply report
1. 76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He didnt evolve too well ,did he
  reply report
  60
  Woman Of Courageposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lol,
  reply report
  76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
89
Bubblegum Senpaiposted 11 years ago
Personally, I think evolution is true - to a point. Evolution explains how life changes over periods of time. Everything about evolution breaks down and is no longer applicable at "beggining of life." The idea that some amino acids - the proper amino acids, no doubt - managed to somehow bond together to form a protein, and then a group of proteins bonded together to form information (DNA), and then bonded with like-minded information to create cells and so on has very little to do with evolution.

How about this - creation as a possibility, and evolution is evidence of divine intervention?

I don't really know, since I'm agnostic (pun intended), but it is actually possible that evolution, natural selection, sexual selection, and creation are all true. It just seems atheists dogmatic as theists, hence why I'm at least willing to admit that there is no way to know.
reply report
1. 76
  Eaglekiwiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yea, my thinking is close to what youre thinking...I think lol
  reply report
2. 61
  moneycopposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't belief its logical to go with evolution theory blindly as it has still 100's of question to be answered
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Which is right: evolution or creation?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Which is right: evolution or creation?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies