Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolution?

Jump to Last Post 151-158 of 158 discussions (1793 posts)

59
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
russelldansmith wrote:

That was the easiest one of all. The Bible states that Jehovah is "Eternal" and "from everlasting to everlasting." There is only one way that He can achieve this: the lack of time as we know it. Note that this is a lack of time "as we know it". He is also said to be able to see the end of a matter before the beginning of it. Again, this is a indication that He has some other factor that has come into play here, a factor in the great beyond that is lost to us.
Having created the universe, with its galaxies and solar systems, and stars and planets, novas and supernovas, He recognized the need to set a timetable, one that would allow humans to govern themselves as they conduct their daily chores. This timetable probably began with the creation of the earth many huge eons ago.

Randy Godwin wrote ..
Got anything other than speculation to offer?

ME ...
I have a question! What is Time?
I mean as in; can it be destroyed ?
What happens to it after we have walked off and left it behind ?
Or can we leave it behind? Is it stuck to us like flypaper?
We can close our eyes and remember some of our yesterdays as if they still exist. They can seem SOoo real still.
Sometimes we can imagine what happens tomorrow and it does.
Where is Time before we come to it ?
Is tomorrow already there ; waiting for us to walk into it like walking into a room?

My mind sometimes acts strangely , maybe it is in two different time zones.
reply report
60
saltposted 14 years ago
Its all about belief!
reply report
1. 61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not all, most of it is merely willful ignorance!
  reply report
59
Merlin Fraserposted 14 years ago
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never
accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears
into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell

Good Night and Goodbye to this thread; I have no more time
to waste on it, I can tolerate ignorance, there is a cure
for that but there is no cure for out and out stupidity.
reply report
1. 60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly, yet people still blindly follow science.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Successfully, keeping believers from having to live in caves.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Tell that to the people who still live in them.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They aren't the hypocrites who diss science at every turn while gleefully taking advantage of everything science provides them.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Very logical, you forgot to add because only people who don't believe in God have contributed to and understand science, and aren't the one who "diss" it.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Touche'!
  reply report
  57
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Once again you assume that your version of Evolutionary theory is Science. Adaptations within species is Science.
  The rest is theoretical nonsense.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I would not venture to disagree with you considering that you have no understanding of evolution whatsoever.
  
  Interestingly enough, scientists have a better grasp of evolution than they do gravity, yet we don't see believers jumping all over that as theoretical nonsense.
  
  Perhaps, it's because believers actually have an inkling of understanding about walking off of cliffs and tall buildings.
  reply report
2. 57
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I have a feeling that we all will stop this thread soon. You are right in at least one point. This thread is a complete waste of time. It should have never been started in the first place. The reason I'm still here is that the utter arrogance of the people that back their faulty evolutionary theories is sickening. I didn't want anyone who was being swayed by this nonesene to think that every one else that read it agreed with these people just because they say they know what they are talking about.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  still - not one piece of evidence for your ideas - just more prevarication and a bit of what you think and feel. I am not a scientist and yet I can go and see touch and work out the evidence for evolution myself. Go to any natural history museum yourself if you like, or if you don't believe them go fossil hunting for seashells at the top of mountains.
  
  Your whole idea rests on the single case that you are too short sighted to see that the universe and everthing in it does not need a creator, in fact the idea of a non-created super-thing is patently ridiculous compared to any other possibility. You cannot grasp simple mathematics and the idea of progression where every cause has an equal and opposite effect, where we exist within the almost endless range of possibilities that exist in the universe and that we grew from logical cause and effect from the conditions that we inhabit. On other worlds I expect there are other creatures that grew from their environment also.
  
  It is time you gave up this thread and trying to disseminate your childish view of how the universe works - unless of course you have some piece of evidence you would like to share ?
  reply report
  57
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is where evolution breaks down again. Every cause has an effect. If you go back far enough, what is the ultimate cause.
  The uncaused cause is illogical within your understanding of the structure of the universe. You seem to be postulating that the universe itself is the cause of everything. Don't you get it that if you leave out the possibility of a creator, then you still have to believe in something ultimate, that needed no cause? A world view devoid of the supernatural makes the universe itself almost supernatural since we know that everything that is natural has a cause.
  And you keep asking me for evidence of my world view. What is evidence from Evolution of an uncaused cause? The reason you will never convince most of the world that there is no creator is not because they don't understand Science. The reason is that you, with all of Science backing you up, will never prove the illogical notion, based upon your world view, that the effects that we see ultimately don't have a first cause. They are merely a long series of effects.
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You do realize that you just talked yourself out of the probability of a creator or a god, right?
  
  What caused god? If you say god just existed, then you've defeated your own argument.
  
  I've answered the questions- Why Do Human Exist? Why the Universe Exists? And many others in my hub Life Questions Answered.
  reply report
  57
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, I did not talk myself out of the possibility that God exists. You notice that I said: "In your understanding of the structure of the universe." I never claimed that there was no uncaused cause. In fact, I insist that there must be. It is those that claim that there is no creator that insist that there are endless effects without a cause. In the universe in which we live, every effect has a cause. That is natural. God is supernatural or beyond the natural order of things. If you have only the natural, there must still be an uncaused cause. You are just saying that this cause isn't God.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly, it's sad when people try to put limitations on the infinite.
  reply report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  What's sad is postmodern people thinking that the bible has anything to do with infinity. This very primitive and limited view of the possibilities is not worth taking into consideration.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What's sad is that you don't realize the science you believe has proven your belief in the universe to be finite.
  reply report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  At least I realize that a ridiculous ancient book of nonsensical fairytales is not the answer to anything. That's childish nonsense.
  
  This is a clear-cut con, no matter how emphatically you assert this idiocy.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's fine if that is your belief, but it's only your non scientific conjecture. You believing in something because someone else told you so, and it is no different from the way I believe. The only difference is what we believe in.
  reply report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So by concluding that my opinion is blind faith, and comparing it to your beliefs, you are outright admitting that your beliefs are just blind faith.
  
  It is foolish to think that two wrongs make a right---and in this case two wrongs makes your nonsensical beliefs true?
  
  Your logic is completely absurd.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, my belief is based off faith. IMO your belief in science should be based on facts verified by you, especially if your willing to condemn other beliefs for it. Instead, you base a belief in science on faith, which is a contradiction of science itself. It would make more sense if you just said I don't know that is my belief. I don't really expect you to understand, because you're too worried about wrong and right.
  report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Funny, again you hold science to a ultra-rigid set of standards, but all you need to confirm, conclusively, that Goddunnit--is a ridiculous ancient book of nonsensical fairytales.
  
  You, sir, have no interest in discerning what is right or wrong, judging by your logic. Frightening!
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again, to concerned with right and wrong, and totally missing the point.
  report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  It seems that you have lost touch, man.
  
  You have no point, in fact the whole point of your defense is pointless. As I said long ago, your delusion has collapsed, and now you are engaged in stating baffling nonsensical comments to support NOTHING---while disregarding any comments that debunk your nonsense.
  
  It's so sad what the fear of death and other monsters in the dark can do to an adult human mind.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Right and wrong has no bearing on your point? I think I may see your problem, as right and wrong is what many of us here are searching for in understanding your posts. Now you've made it clear that facts aren't important it throws a different light on your comments. Thanks and see you later!
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly right, faith is what's important. Facts are verified in science, not faith.
  report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Is that a fact?
  This is starting to really look bad. I actually feel sorry for you at this point.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No need to feel sorry, as long as you keep your focus on God that's all that matters. Faith will come in it's own time.
  report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  !!!
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Glad you went from feeling sorry to laughing again.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What's sad is you don't understand science. Where do you see a finite universe, or lack of other dimensions?
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You've just proven my point.
  reply report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That you don't know what you are talking about?
  
  We already knew that!
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, that you try to cherry pick & regurgitate what you've read on a few internet articles/Wikipedia excluding practical application, to validate your knowledge of science.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, a true psychic in our midst! Or is it prophet? I get the two confused unless I refer to Wikipedia. And if you would point out the cherry picking I would be much obliged. I'm sure you do not cherry pick the bible and take everything in it literally.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I must be confused. I'm sure you came up with your beliefs in science all on your own.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Creationism, just more of this->
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe to you, but to many it's not.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I have heard it referred to as snot too!
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's nice to see the simple things make you laugh. When confronted with your blind faith in science you resort to horse cartoons and snot jokes.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You do indeed!
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, you're on a role. No wonder it's so easy for you to be told what to believe.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Easy? It has taken an untold amount of scientific research by the smartest men in the world to find out much of the facts pertaining to what to believe about evolution.
  
  While you merely read on old book of myths and listen to ignorant creationists trying to explain why they know better than learned men.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, you got me pegged. It's a relief to know you had a formal education in science, and got told what to believe.
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just curious, if I were able to reproduce and observe myself the results of any experiment in which I "got told what to believe" were the results, would that make any difference?
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I guess it would if you were re-evaluating what you believe.
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Certainly, when evaluating a hypothesis one must first conduct a thought experiment or 'gedanken' in their mind in order to know and understand what kind of experiment to conduct. This would certainly take some amount of "imaginative" thinking based on a any number of sources of information. There might even be included sources of information that have yet to yield much result; experiences, testimonials, beliefs, etc.
  
  What's interesting from all this is that after the experiments were conducted and the results observed, many found their original hypotheses to be seriously faulty or completely invalid. Some had some form of success or perhaps helped to create other concepts or questions, but the vast majority of experimentation did not usually yield the results originally imagined or believed.
  
  In other words, whatever 'belief' one may have imagined and injected into an experiment, those beliefs were often shattered and discarded by the results of reality.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly right, and that is why any Theory can be shattered, and re-evaluated to fit a new mold just as easily as it was created. However, I would have to disagree with your assessment of the hypothesis. Generally, one performs the research on their question before actually constructing a hypothesis to be evaluated.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Exactly right, and that is why any Theory can be shattered, and re-evaluated to fit a new mold just as easily as it was created."
  
  Really? And how many times has this happened to Newton's laws of gravity? When was it first shattered and how has it changed into a new mold?
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you are seriously asking me this question, then I'm sorry, but I don't have enough time to help you. You should really take your time and curiosity to the classroom. You're question will most likely be answered in your 3rd year of physics.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't think so.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The jokes on you bud (unintentionally), but the sad part is you don't even realize it.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, the jokes on me because you state BS with no ability to back your words up. And you do this repeatedly. You made a statement, now back up your words.
  
  Show me how Newton's theory was shattered and remade several times in a completely different mold. Like most theories, the understanding of their inner workings becomes better known over time and with better means and tools to research the findings.
  
  But feel free to point out the shattered theory.
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Which one?
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  His aforementioned law of universal gravitation. There were flaws but "shattered"? Nope!
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah yes, Newton made a couple of assertions that he was unable to verify due to the lack of technology. They were that he believed the speed of light to be infinite and that gravity was a pulling force; action at a distance.
  
  Einstein corrected his math by including the correct speed of light and showing that gravity was not a pulling force, or a force at all, that it was actually indistinguishable from acceleration.
  report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  interesting about gravity - do you have any idea how gravity is related to acceleration ? I seem to stick on the world more each year, but I thnk we have been all going at the same speed all this time ?
  
  If it means go look up - I can do that later
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Gravity and acceleration are related simply as being indistinguishable from each other. The thought experiment (gedanken) that Einstein used to envision this relationship was a man in an elevator. If the man cannot see what is occurring outside of the elevator, whether the elevator is accelerating upwards or whether the elevator is motionless but is at rest in a gravity field, he will not be able to tell which one is occurring.
  report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  so really it just has the same properties of effect, not derived from the same energy or whatever ? in the experiment if the elevator were faling at 32 feet per sec per sec the guy would be weightless, but some force must still be moving the the elevator ?
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is only the effects that are indistinguishable as far as a relationship is concerned.
  
  Yes, the guy would be weightless. If you've ever jumped on a trampoline or high dived, you'll notice that once you're in the air, you have no feeling of any forces acting on you. However, once you land, you can feel the force of the surface of the earth pushing up against the bottom of your feet. In other words, the surface of the earth can be viewed as accelerating up towards you, as is the effects of gravity.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please just enroll in a class or two.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Please just answer the question.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Stating the answer to you would be futile, because you don't speak the language.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct there. I've never claimed to be fluent in BS.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's a noticeable trend that you attempt mockery when you don't understand something. Kind of like Organic Matter.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  versus organic material?
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If by that you're referring to the requirement of any theory having to possess the characteristic of 'fallibility' - that if the result of any experiment conducted can show the theory to be invalid, the theory must be discarded or modified, yes. And, it is in this basic requirement we find one of the greatest strengths of the Scientific Method.
  
  The first steps in the Scientific Method are to attempt to describe and explain an observation of a phenomena, which results in the formulation of the hypothesis; a prediction of what should occur in an experiment.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  One can make predictions based off researched information, and then verify/disprove through experiment.
  report
  61
  Randy Godwinposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So where did you get your education on religion? You know, what learned men did you get your info from and what are their credentials?
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I got my education on religion from the School of Hard Knocks, and continue to study the Bible for a never ending instruction. The "credentials" are from God.
  report
  57
  GodTalkposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You equate primitive ideas with non truth. Truth is truth no matter how old it is, unless you are one of those postmodern thinkers that say all truth is relative.
  reply report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently truth is relative to you, because your bible is only 'truth' relative to whether or not one is delusional.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  speaking of 'primitive' - here's some pics of uncontacted tribes
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … rrows.html
  
  They have not had contact with 'civilised' humans, know nothing about evolution, and if anyone tries to share the gospel, I expect they will be turned into missionary stew
  reply report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That article was amazing.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  here's another about indigenous people living in the Amazon
  
  http://www.amazon-tribes.com/
  
  The aboriginal people of Australia & Maori people of New Zealand had similarities until 'civilised' interference a few hundred years ago
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  human sacrifice still practised
  
  http://www.amazon-tribes.com/korubos.html
  
  so is cannabilism (can be sign of respect to eat the deseased) - no wastage, I suppose
  
  http://www.suite101.com/content/the-ult … sm-a261929
  report
  80
  getitriteposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And what proof do you have that it is God?
  reply report
  72
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There you go. Putting words into my mouth, for which, I did not say. I said probability, not possibility. Anything is possible, up to the point, it becomes improbable. Then, it's deemed impossible. Like traveling the speed of light- presently impossible, but in the future it is possible.
  But, what you fail to realize is that there are some questions for which never need be answered, and that is the answer to the question for which you're asking. It is your limited understanding of Life in general that leads you to believe or rationalize a god must have done it.
  This is not in doubt.
  Thus, does not exist by all accounts. The Supernatural does not exist in reality. Only in the weak minded.
  I'm say that there is no god. Because, the true understanding of "god" is that the word is a metaphor for something else. What that something else is? Is in Jesus' teachings, and it's not a spirit, a soul or entity in somewhere outside space and time? Jesus' teachings had nothing to do with a 'god', outside oneself own ability to control one's thoughts and actions. Jesus despised religion, yet you people continue believe in the "god" Jesus despised.
  
  Pretty sad actually.
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No - it is nothing to do with evolution breaking down or otyherwise.
  
  The question of how did it all start only comes from the idea that comes with a belief in god that there must be an origin and an ending - this is why it is hard to grasp infinity. However there are many other possibilities ranging form 'it was always here' to 'circular time' to 'it isnot possible for nothing to exist without something that does exist for there to be a nothing of'. Just because we don't know does not prove or disprove anything. In the range of possibilites and not very liklies and outright well that is hard to believes a concious entity making it all for its own amusement seems the least plausible, then you go make it even more ridiculous by having it mate with a human so that its one-off offspring can get killed - and then you tell us this all for you ! If you can't see that your god idea is just areflection of your own ego then you are never really going to get a handle on things.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Cause all you've managed to accomplish is to support the thread title in spades.
  
  You've also shown well beyond a shadow of a doubt just how dangerous religious indoctrination and beliefs are to mankind and the understanding of the world around us.
  
  We would all still be living in caves if we followed those ideals of your belief system.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  thread should never have been started in first place?
  
  why not? Very valid question. was wondering if believers deliberately lie or are just so misinformed that they make false statements about science etc. Particularly after observing a few hubbers doing this
  reply report
59
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
Merlin Fraser wrote

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never
accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears
into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell

= = = = - - - - = = = =

Very true words that most people recognize as being fitting for those in the other camp.
When in fact, everyone that theorizes, are wearing that badge.
reply report
61
Tumbletreeposted 14 years ago
Every thing the Bible teaches about the creation of the world and about the physical world itself, can be understood by a third grader. Science is a discipline that takes decades to master. Third graders cannot do calculus, but they can understand that a god magically made things.

In the 21st century, it is ridiculous to argue with people who want to view the world through the eyes of a child. Don't. Walk away, they will only waste your time. Let them stay in their flat world, why you grown in your understanding of the universe and technologies that understanding allows. You will be able to predict tomorrow and prepare and prosper from that, while they prepare themselves for a world that never was.
reply report
63
Trish_Mposted 14 years ago
I haven't read the entire thread, but I wanted to try to answer Baileybear's question, anyway.

I don't actually think that most Creationists deliberately tell lies, but I think that they are so convinced that their worldview is correct, that they believe the incorrect 'evidence', given to them by others, and then they pass it on.

Nonsensical stories about apes giving birth to humans, etc, seem to fly around the Internet. If Creationists really believe that this is what evolution means, then it is no wonder that they reject it ~ but, of course, evolutionists do not believe this silliness.

It is not true to say that evolutionists believe that an ape can turn into a human, but I don't think that ~ for many ~ this nonsensical untruth is passed on as a deliberate lie. I think that they have been told this and that they believe it, because they do not understand how evolution actually works.
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can' t believe this thread is still going.
  
  Yes, I noticed how you pointed out the deception in the whole monkeys giving birth to humans fiascos. What amazes me, is how they clearly do not understand what science, yet attack it with false arguments - even writing hubs about their twisted version.
  
  I have been bewildered as to whether they are deliberately lying or are just so convinced by all the crap they've swallowed & continue to regurgitate.
  
  I don't know how you've had the patience to try and explain simple concepts to supposedly 'intelligent' people who refuse to hear. Very disturbed thinking, that people are so close-minded like this
  reply report
63
Trish_Mposted 14 years ago
Maybe, given the chance to really think about what they believe, and given some clear simple information, some of them may, at least, start to understand what evolution is and what evolutionists actually 'believe' ~ even if they don't accept it themselves, which, of course, is a personal matter for them.

What is not a personal matter for them, is when they pass on misinformation ~ the very misinformation that has confused them in the first place ~ and which is insulting and incorrect about those who understand the science.

Well, that's my opinion on the subject
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  and then they accuse anyone that corrects them of being demon-possessed liars - oh, the irony
  reply report
68
superwagsposted 14 years ago
I don't understand why the god squadders are so bothered about evolution over all other areas of modern sciences. Barely anything works the way the bible says it should, basically because it was written in the iron age.

Here are a list of topics off the top of my head which fly directly in the face with what the bible says: Geology, geography, paleontology, archeology, zoology, ecology, anthrapology, cosmology, medicine, pathology, pretty much all physics... the list goes on. Basically, pretty much any scientific bed rock of modern society. That's before we get onto legal and moral issues with the vast majority of the book.

I just find it slightly depressing that people are still talking about whether evolution is real 150 years after everybody within the scientific community accpeted its validity.
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  agree with you.
  
  People enjoy the fruits of scientific thought and discovery - stuff that wasn't around in bible times - like flush toilets, sewage treatment, electricity, transport, computers.
  reply report
  68
  superwagsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Bailey, I've probably shared this with you before (I try to with everyone on here who's actually interested in science), but for anyone doubting how the world has changed for the better in just the past 150 years, they can use these interactive statistics. Easy to use, fun to watch and based on all UN statistics drawn toegther...
  
  http://www.gapminder.org/
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2 3 4

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)

Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolution?

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

Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolution?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies