“I think people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there’s an Intelligent Designer…. For the past one hundred and fifty years, scientists have used arguments based on analogies to things we do understand to formulate new hypotheses in emerging areas of scientific work. And that’s what this is all about…. If the only time we see written information−whether it’s a painting on a cave wall or a novel from Amazon.com−is when there’s an intelligence behind it, then wouldn’t that also be true of nature itself? In other words, what is encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living creature is purely and simply written information…. Now when we see written language, we can infer, based on our experience, that it has an intelligent cause. And we can legitimately use analogical reasoning to conclude that the remarkable information sequences in DNA also had an intelligent cause. Therefore, this means life on earth came from a ‘who’ instead of a ‘what….’ Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It’s certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn’t the random product of unguided nature, but it’s the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer…. [Darwinists have not been able to provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.] Despite all their efforts, they haven’t even come up with a single possibility that even remotely makes sense. And there’s no prospect they will. In fact, everything is pointing the other way−in the unmistakable direction of God. Today it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist who is an atheist.”
-Dr. Walter L. Bradley, retired from Texas A&M
What do you think?
I think that this topic has been done to death on these forums probably 50 or 100 or more times, and that it will only attract tyrekickers, loonies, sock puppets, spammers, cutters and pasters, and trolls.
(And I'm a tyrekicker . Or perhaps a loonie for even posting in the religious forums. )
Good luck with getting a definitive response. To my knowledge, there hasn't been one for thousands of years.
But then again, you might just strike it lucky.
I think atheists now should admit of their falsehood and wrongs and stop lying about this theory further. Besides, this theory must be eradicated from the course books of sciences and the governments should take notice of it and totally BAN it on the double.
you can't prove you to yourself. because our mind ignoring the simplicity
I think demonstrating your ignorance of the evolutionary process and cut and pasting other people's irrational arguments is not helping your case.
I do find this argument that it is wrong to have faith in something that there is (according to your friend here) "not enough evidence for," pretty entertaining though.
I suggest a decent dictionary. Look up the word "reasonable."
Just here for a fight huh? You must be a christian.
I already gave you the evidence in some other forum which you were unable to refute. Now the General gave you the copy paste thing and this also is not refuted by some intellectual argument rather you start you talk by LOL and after that some childish sentences.
Grow up man, you can do it.
Seriously dude - buy a decent dictionary. You have never once read anything I have written. What would be the point of saying any more?
How old are you? You do know there is a minimum age limit here?
I am younger than you and that i think is enough for you kind of debunked atheists who start suffering from anxiety disorder related to their old age and death. By the way dictionary is the thing which you kind of oldies need due to the disease of retaining words in your memories.
So, now try to stick to the topic and give some logicall comment (which you cant) so that we can call you a descent old man.
It appears that you have made absolutely no effort whatsoever to read any of the criticisms of the arguments that you have made, or rather, the ones you are quoting from another source, in your post. I have heard these hundreds of times.
The "paintings have painters" argument is a false analogy because we have observed paintings being painted by artists. All other analogies you used are subject to the same logic. Bottom line is, we know what human artifacts look like from experience. Nature, however, has no observed architect. Have you ever seen any universes or natural objects being created? Also, paintings don't replicate themselves with variation like bioligical things do. Inanimate objects aren't comparable to biological objects, which replicate themselves and can evolve.
You mischaracterize evolution as random, but this is, for the most part, false. If you knew anything about biological evolution, you would know that natural selection is the exact opposite of random. I'm not going to type out long explanation about how natural selection works, I don't do other people's research for them. If you are really an intellectually honest individual, you will do some research using UNBIASED sources. After doing that, if you still want to claim that natural selection is "random", be my guest. But don't expect me to take you seriously after that.
Hopefully, you at least realize that the study of the origin of life, also known as Abiogenesis, has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. Evolution explains how organisms change in reponse to their environment. Abiogenesis attempts to explain how the first self-replicating molecules emerged on Earth.
No one knows how this came about, although, there have been great strides in progress in the last half century. The creationist argument basically boils down to "science doesn't know how this happened, therefore, God did it with magic." This is what people of my persuasion call a "God of the Gaps" argument. Where a gap exists in scientific understanding, believers will jump in and say "see, no one knows, so there must exists a supernatural magic man who conjured everything into existence." This is a pathetic argument not worthy of recognition. If that is the best creationists or their politically expedient organizations going by the alias "intelligent design" can do, then they are desperate indeed.
Another mistake in reasoning that is made is to claim that "darwinists" believe that a fully formed strand of DNA just spontaneously came together in the primordial soup one day. No scientist of sound mind actually believes this. They actually believe that very simple precursors to DNA and even the simpler RNA most likely formed and after mutation and natural selection took hold, more and more complex long chain molecules resulted.
Let me also add that most atheists don't claim that they have disproved the existence of a god. They simply state that there is no compelling reason to believe that there is a god at the present time. Even if we were to one day find evidence that our cosmos was designed, this would not prove that the designer was any particular designer, such as the Abrahamic God. In fact, it wouldn't even prove that it was a god at all. Perhaps it would just be a very powerful being but not one that possessed magical powers, like the ability to read minds, answer prayers, produce miracles, provide an afterlife, etc.
Another question would be that if we were designed, who or what designed the designer? If it is so impossible to believe that complex intelligent beings can exist uncreated, then why are you contradicting that belief by claiming that something can(i.e. god)?
Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" dedicates an entire chapter of his book to Hoyle's whirlwind in a junkyard argument. It is called "the ultimate boeing 747 gambit" and Dawkins has said that it is the central thesis of his book. He says that the argument to design is actually the greatest evidence AGAINST the existence of a god.
So, to claim that taking only as fact that which can be established by empirical observation and reasoned logic takes more faith than believing that an eternally existent supernatural being conjured the cosmos into existence with magic, then you are willing to believe anything.
The existence of a god is far from obvious.
I think you should write a hub about it. In all honesty why do people care who is an atheist and who believes in God. People are going to believe what they are going to believe, and there is really not much changing that.
I think most atheists are familiar with the religiously inclined Dr. Walter L. Bradley. All I can say is what others will.
So what? It is a nonsense.
As for the human sequence, we already know how to repair many of the mistakes in it.
No proof of god anywhere, massive proof in science of developments that make your religion look like what it is, and still you will never understand. Ignorant by indoctrination, and furthered by choice. You have nowhere to go with this.
Thank you melbel, I used to think they were ignorant because they did not read, but it is only the few scientist/religionists that they do read. Unlike others who have read the bible and continue to learn without the constraint of "that's the devil's work I won't read that." So sad really.
im a theist i'm not an atheist now what... you can always visit me at my profile and lets exchange some healthy conversation about evolution vs intelligent design, i have hubs related to this....
I commented on one of you hubs! Did you read it?
I want you to read the other one the egg chicken something, find time to read it hehehe, i hope you're going to like it... im planning to make hubs about intelligent design although they're taxing...
even darwin himself is recanting his theories by the time he is dying but they're all published and cannot be called back...
taking directly from the horse mouth...
The odds that all life came about randomly is virtually zero.
Accomplished Cambridge astrophysicist and atheist Sir Fredrick Hoyle calculated the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. The odds were 1 in 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes, or so “utterly miniscule” as to make Darwin’s theory of evolution absurd. He likened it to the probability that a tornado whirling through a junkyard would put together a fully functional Boeing 747.
You mean to say evolution is nothing then since evolution is more of a chance... now where on the same boat...
Yet things happen! The chances of the biblical god even being able to pull his undies on is a squillion higher than that!
"Evolutionary theory and terminology is in fact filled with tautologies (logical fallacy consisting of inane repetition). The phrase that most aptly encapsulates evolution, “survival of the fittest,” is a tautology. Popper observes, “To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological…. Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success is survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.” Nobel Prize winning geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan recognized the phrase as “little more than a truism.” British geneticist C. H. Waddington also recognized natural selection to be a tautology. Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy. Everything becomes confirmation of evolution. Evolution must therefore provide real demonstration or revise its terminology. And yet, many of the evolutionary/taxonomical terms for biological groups are defined by an absence of characteristics, which is what gives rise to the tautological problem."
Im out for tonight General. Here in Louisville Kentucky its 2:00am. Ill pm you and see if your on tomorrow evening. Peace.
Faith is a choice , its not based on evidence of logic . Dear friend . If you want to believe , its upto you .. But dont depend on logic ..thats all I can say . If you want to spread your theories .. or spread your faith .. You are in deep smelly shit .. Firstly your arguements are grossly wrong . If you can not accept that the coded information in DNA is randomly formed .. How do you contemplate the ORIGIN of something which wrote that information ? HOW DO YOU CONTEMPLATE THAT GOD WAS FORMED .. WHO CREATED GOD ? is it another GOD !! I pity the extent of superficial misunderstood and retarded logic you have . Have faith .. pray ..But ..know this ..that you are not proving anything to anyone here !!
I posted something similiar on another topic in response to earnestshub
and since I seen where the painter/artist subject was brought up I thought I would chime in.
an artist paints a painting on a canvas.
he paints subjects (people)
trees, plants, animals, life.
Ok, now does the artist have to live inside the painting to have painted it? No. The artist has painted the painting from wherever that artist is.
Ok now that the work is finished the artist rests.
Then some of the "subjects" in the painting begin to question whether or not the artist did in fact paint them.
They ask other subjects who believe in the artist to offer physical proof.
Can they? no. since they are confined to the space on the canvas and cannot find any physical evidence on the canvas of the painter aside from, the paint itself, how did the paint get there and the debate continues.
Now in this scenario did all the debating negate the fact that the artist did in fact exist? The subjects offered varying degrees of theories but neiher side could prove nor disprove the artist did in fact paint the painting. Yet the artist did.
Now, the subjects in this case could not prove the existance of the artist because the artist did not live in the realm of their world as they know it. Leaving behind a footprint for example you know where one has stepped, etc. But what is it that the artist could do or leave behind in this case to let everyone know he painted the painting?
It is my belief, the Bible is that very signature left on this canvas we call life. It is and hs been His footprint for humanity.
Now none of you no matter what you study, or how hard you study it have ever or will ever be able to supply one single speck of proof that God does not exist. No evidence to debate that he doesn't either.
But someday, every single man, woman and child will know the artist behind this masterpiece. And that will put an end to all these debates once and for all
The more science progresses the more it will disprove many flawed scientific theories (including evolution) and will cement that GOD exists. If evolution thing cannot even provide answer to the EGG OR CHICKEN QUESTION, how much more with those intricate matters.
Evolution mislead a lot of people already...
Time came when science made to believe that the earth was flat, the scriptures said otherwise (i'm not a religion fanatic, i'm more with plausible logic and facts so as to speak), another blunder was that again for the second time people was made to believe that the universe revolve around the earth, ahhh fiction again... and history repeat itself the third mother of all blunders in the offing would be ---- THE EVOLUTION THEORY (READ THEORY NOT LAW), hahaha theory is totally different from fact, a theory = theory, law = fact... simple equation here, and you don't even need dictionary here...
Now this is tough to refute eh?
Yet another fanatic. Plausible logic and facts? Really - a decent dictionary is in order here. I can highly recommend the Oxford English.
It does have a lot of big words in it, but is well worth the effort.
Oh boy, the ole' "evolution is just a theory" canard.
Evolution is an observed fact. The set of principles that explains the observation that life forms change over time is called the theory. The word "theory" in "theory of evolution" does not in any way indicate that it is not an observed fact. The word "theory" in scientific nomenclature doesn't mean the same thing it does in the colloquial sense of the word.
Here are some other "theories": theory of gravity, theory of electricity, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, sex theory, cell theory.
Next time your wife (or girlfriend) asks you for some luvin', just tell her "Nah, sex is just a theory."
observed fact hehehe, are there any human observer when your so called evolution took place... nah, canard... your refuting yourself eh, this is what we call self-inflicted wound. i guess you need to read carefully and thoroughly the scientific method to distinguish facts with myths. hmmm i guess your ancestors are monkeys and apes hehehe i'll buy that, but i guess you don't look like them but how come there are people that look like horse nyahahahahaha. how about this if all man evolve from monkeys, apes and primates then there will be no more monkeys, primates and apes right now
@mark hehehe hmmm well, i'm not fond of having to argue with people that disregards fact... sorry that's not my cup of tea, hmmm so your fanatic too, hehehe fanatic of darwin's, i guess this will settle the score...
hehehe as much as possible i dont want to engage a head on collission with you hehehe, this is just an argument though hehehe
Now with the chicken and egg thing you haven't given me plausible FACT with this matter... hehehe don't escape my axe...
Another fanatic sock puppet then. You really do need a dictionary though. I suggest looking up the word "fact" as a good starting place.
Sorry your irrational beliefs have been dis-proven. Does life even have any meaning for you any more?
what do you think of yourself a superior living creature hehehe over self-confident, well i admire your enormous intelligence, charm and wit... darwin's puppet. you don't even know scientific method hehehe... funny... very funny.
Please speak science here, this is not a legal matter here, were not in a courtroom or something...
Seriously - give me your address and I will send you a dictionary.
It might even give your life some meaning again.
I'm living my life to the fullest how about you, hehehe dictionary thing, encyclopedia would be better...
"Sometimes it is better not to be acquainted with somebody else on the grounds of principles at first and eventually being friends no matter what are the differences are, than to be a friend with somebody on the grounds of having no principles and eventually abandoning their friendship..." --- generalhowitzer
Yes it is called maturity I believe, and a respectful spirit
Ah - you mean like the amount of times I have helped you when you needed help yet you attack me when you think I have said something I have not.
I am learning a lot about christian values from you.
I have been more than grateful when you have helped me and well you know it.
Yes I have disagreed and challenged you, as you have me certainly not attacked you.
Actually judging,(yes I used that word) by the amount of laughter I evoked from you , Id say I provided a great deal of humour for you too.
hehehe there is what we called "jargons" mark... words in science might be different from real life words...
weight in science is different from that of the real life. in science weight is affected with gravity, and writing this in equation we have weight equals mass (kg or lb.) multiplied with acceleration due to gravity which is equals to 9.81 meter/seconds squared...
or simply w=mg, and weight is related to force, both have Newton(s)/dyne as units...
in real life weight is how heavy or light you are. this is actually equivalent to mass (kg. or lb.) in science...
look before you leap mark...
the fact i'm dealing with is something that passes the acid test of scientific method, not with what you're dictionary is telling me, by the way what's that again, oxford's, i really dont need that, i will not bother...
i'm using encyclopedia and you're not... hehehe
i know my science sir hehehe...
I still admire your sheer wit mark, no matter what...
I guess this is a fire thread...
Sorry guys, hehehe, now the tide have had shifted to two best of friends, i'm just defending my ground...
You have my full respect and it is still intact, Mark ... as I said earlier I don't like to have a head on collision with you.
hehehe I'm just warming up with this topic, i still have some bombshell ready to be unleash...
Is the world going to be better if God exists? Is it going to be better if he doesn't ?
This world is full of crap and errors one way or the other LOL!
So who cares?! We will have to deal with sickness, hunger, misery, hatred,stupid people, etc, etc , all our lifes. So what's the point arguing here ?I't's not evolution's fault. And No God is going to be so mean, nasty and so masochist as to creat this sort of 'creation'. So what's the point? why so much argument.? Don't we have enough threads on the topic ? Why instead of wasting the time here, you people go out to the world and get a life? among all the rubbish ,there still are a lot of wonderful things as love,friendship, nature, happiness... And now I want to see your 'bomb' ,general !
come on, tantrum. you know he's gonna say god really doesn't exist.
sorry i'm more fond of science tantrum, hehehe... by the way... i think you are barking on the wrong tree... i'm not a devout religionist and at the same time you haven't read the entire thread yet, i guess you need to look around first then saying things later...
"there still are a lot of wonderful things as love,friendship, nature, happiness..." this comes from your mouth nyahahaha... i think you are refuting yourself... these attributes are testament of God's existence...
1- this wasn't directed to you. I chose your post because of the 'bombshell'. I thougt it was funny
2- I don't think nature, happiness etc, are proves of God's existence ,as i don't believe in God. So I'm not refuting myself. Or atheist are not allowed to see nature , happiness .etc ?
3- i always read before i write, and i'm waiting for your bomb
I'm at work right now can i post later if its okay with you...
by the way why you're still here nyahaha i think this things are rubbish nyahahaha..
so why take the trouble to answer all the posts ?? . It must be the animal in you !
Anyway we can go on and on with "studies" and "facts" and quotes and be here all day. But there is another way to answer the Creation/Evolution question and that is: Is Jesus really who He says He is.
Since Jesus rose from the dead, it really depends on Him. If He really was the son of God then we know we were created, if He wasnt then we are a pointless life form "floating" in the cosmos.
"From nothing....nothing comes"
Who created God?-Dawkins issue
"Darwinian evolution has been a powerful model to help us understand the development of life on earth. However it is a model and, like all models, it has its limitations. In that sense it is no different from, say, Newtonian physics or Euclidean geometry. We discovered in the 20th century that there are parts of the universe where Newton and Euclid do not apply. Is it not therefore possible that Darwinian evolution is similar? Do we know the universe so well that we can say confidently that Darwinian evolution applies in all its parts? Also, how can we say that Darwinian evolution would apply to a creator God? If God created the universe He is, by definition, outside it. If I build a wall in my back garden, I’m not part of the wall. If God is not of the universe, why then would the “rules” of the universe apply to God? "
There is an awful lot of supposition in there, but I will make a few points. I am not going to respond to the cut and pasted argument that makes no sense - if you want a discussion - you will have to use your own words.
1. Jesus did not rise from the dead
2. He was not the son of god
3. You were not "created"
4. You must now think you are a pointless life form floating in the cosmos
Personally - I do not need to pretend an invisible super being is watching out for me - or that I am "special" to make life worth living.
Life must be hell for you with all the proof of evolution around you. Maybe if you cut and pasted some more spurious, illogical arguments that other fanatics have made?
Hi! Mark, I just wanted to say hello, I haven't see you in awhile. How are ya?
1 - Jesus (peace be upon him) was a unique creation of Allah (Elohim) as was Adam (pbuh).
2 - Jesus (pbuh) was the son of Allah (Elohim) but not the begotten one.
3 - Every thing which we see around us or whcih we can not see are the creations of Allah. The theory of Evolution is scientifically refuted by a large number of scientists even evolutionists themselves became fed up of this exaggerated falsehood of evolution and started giving talks against Darwin and Evolution. Only one evolutionist called MILLER had got some balls and tried to prove evolution via experiment but pathetically failed. The only support to this theory is from Freemasonry, All the ISM based dogmas, Hollywood, Media and Education (controlled by Freemasons and Zionists).
4 - The result or outcome of the theory of evolution after giving it a pointless hype is just feeding in the people with the POINTLESS LIFE dogma (nothing else) and thats the reason crimes are increasing day by day all over the world specially in America. Evolution gave people with no positive outcomes at all. It just helped out Freemasons and Zionists to remove the fear of a watchfull God over them, the fear of no escape from trial in the second life, thus making them MONSTERS which can only be controled by a monstrous system = NEW WORLD ORDER / NEW MASONIC ORDER and by a monstrous being = ONE EYED DAJJAL = ANTICHRIST. THESE ARE THE ONLY ANCIENT EGYPTIANS' DOGMAS WHICH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS SERVING FROM THE PAST 200 YEARS, NOTHING ELSE.
You state it as if it is a self-evident fact that Jesus rose from the dead. What is your evidence for this? I have heard just about every conceivable argument for the resurrection. If you tell me something I haven't heard before, I would be really surprised. And by the way, I read the link to that website. Not impressive in the least.
Who ever said there was nothing. I am assuming you are referring to the beginning of the universe - am I right? I don't think any contemporary cosmologist has ever suggested that there was nothing (no matter, no energy) and then something just "appeared." Saying that atheists believe that something came from nothing is just a straw-man.
This is the standard answer given by believers when the question of God's existence is raised. Believers often resort to defining God in such a way that no rational argument can possibly apply. Saying that something "by definition" is a certain way is meaningless. You can't define something and it's attributes into existence. Massive, massive assumptions. What if I said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is defined as "A limitless being that makes all other gods impossible"? Would you then be forced to concede that your god doesn't exist becuase, after all, the FSM "by definition" makes all other gods impossible?
The point of Dawkins' argument is that complexity can't be accounted for by invoking even greater complexity. The real question is, where does complexity come from. It's not enough to say that complexity can just exist without any explanation other than "God, in all his complexity, just exists, uncreated, because he is defined that way." If such a being exists, this would need to be verified empirically. It is not something that can be deduced through logic. As I said before, something can't be defined into existence. So, If our existence requires an explanation, then a being that is immensely more complex demands an explanation as well. The statement that "all complex things require a creator" would also apply to God leading to the absurd conclusion that there exists an infinity of created and creative gods; the so-called "infinite regress." What is required is an explanation that explains itself. Evolution by natural selection very elegantly explains how simple laws interacting, coupled with a non-random selection process, results in complexity. This doesn't necessarily disprove a creator, but it does make positing such a being a massive assumption, hence the title of the chapter which this argument is found entitled "Why there almost certainly is no God."
I hope all that made sense. Dawkins explains it much better than I ever could in his book. If you aren't narrow-minded, I would recommend reading it sometime.
@ David >>>. Why you're escaping my axe you're not yet done with me, is that your way of CONCEDING in an argument, hehehe...
So it is 2 win no loss on my part counting the victory over Mark Knowles by default (hehehe no longer responded to my tirades sorry hehehe Mark I know you're so good nyahaha, is just that sometime a David can pull off an upset over Goliath nyahahaha )
It's not my thread. I can't care less. Bye ! I only came back to answer your reply
by Capable Woman 9 years ago
My question is what's actually wrong with the Intelligent Design theory? I find many aspects of it quite forward thinking and interesting.I know it was roundly disparaged in the media as almost some kind of joke...but why? Is it because those who propound the theory want it taught in place of...
by Cecilia 7 years ago
Can you be an Creationist Atheist or a Religious Scientist? Is it possible or are you either one or the other?
by Disappearinghead 8 years ago
When we consider the workings of the human body: the immune system, the continual automatic regulation of its systems, the subconcious workings of the brain, the workings of a cell; does it not seem strange that the body is more intelligent than the person living inside? If there is no God, explain...
by thetruthhurts2009 9 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...
by Marcy Goodfleisch 16 months ago
Which is true - Creationism or Evolution? Can both be right?It seems there are still arguments about whether the world was 'created' or whether it 'evolved.' What do you believe? Can you also accept the alternative view?
by Richard Parr 6 years ago
“Evolutionary theory is not a slam-dunk. It is an exercise in storytelling that masquerades as a scientific theory” [William A. Dembski]In his article 'Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge', Dr Dembski asks five questions.I present only the first one here. What is the evolutionists...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|