Why are we so bad at this?

Zuc, do you know that it was believed by some scientists
(However not Christian scientists) that plants evolved and
became gaseous, and that the dinosaurs ate the plants and
burped themselves to death.It seems that people can have a few letters after their name,
publish a peer reviewed magazine, and graphics to go with it,
and many evolutionists will go along with it.And, what about the meteor that supposedly fell in the
Yucatan Pinnesula (most likely a volcano, not a meteor).
Isn't is weird how evolutionists suggest that it killed all the
dinosaurs.But it didn't kill all the ducks, birds, beavers, etc....
Talk about believing in fairy tales.Evolutionists even have a fairy tale about a frog that evolved
In a man (prince).An evolutionists once stated that no man has ever seen a
dinosaur. How would he know this? Has he talked to every
person who has ever lived. No.There are dragon (dinosaur) legend in every country in the
world, going back thousands of years.A number of people in history have stated that they have
seen them with their own eyes. In fact, some have described
them quite wellWe have pictographs, etchings, reliefs, embellishments, etc...
that were made centuries ago.We have dinosaurs with soft tissue, red blood cells, etc in
even broken fragments of fossils.Numerous dinosaur fossils have been tested and found to
contain significant amounts of C-14 in them. After 50,000
years we should be unable to detect any C-14.There are many large and massive fossil graveyards found
around the world. And the reason given for the fossil
graveyards is that of local floods.Never once will these delusionists accept the premise of an
global flood. It would wreck their paradigm.Evolutionists even believe that a 300 foot wide river created
the Grand Canyon. Portions of the GC are 18 miles wide.
See how warped their thinking has become!There were a 1000 cubic miles of debris removed from the
GC. How come there is none of this found at the mouth of
the river?And how can a river flow uphill for several feet?There is much more wrong about the evolutionists beliefs of
how the GC was formed, but for the moment, I am out of time
to post it.Creationist know how the universe was started. We know how
and when all life was created. We know the purpose of the
creation, and we know how it will end.Evolutionists know none of this.

Nothing you just posted has any truth to it. None at all! And we have explained them to you over and over and over and over again! And you are always too willfully stupid and stubbornly ignorant to ever learn anything. Far worse, your false religion (not to be confused with actual Christianity) instills in you such fear of the truth that you must force yourself to be too willfully stupid and stubbornly ignorant to ever learn the truth. Read Matt 7:20: you are the wicked fruit produced by the wicked tree that is your religion and that proves that your religion is false and must be cut down and thrown into the fire.Fun fact: up to 80% of children raised as fundamentalist Christians grow up to reject religion altogether (creationist Mr. Kent Hovind cites that figure at 75%). Why are those churches hemorrhaging their next generation? The churches themselves are clueless, but you can learn why by reading the testimonials in ex-Christian forums.One factor is that all those kids were raised on creationist lies. Guess what happens when those kids grow up and start learning real science: they realize that their churches, creationist teachers, and even their own parents had lied to them their entire lives so they reject everything they had been taught by those liars. While many become atheists, some remain Christian though not fundamentalist, and maybe an extremely few remain fundamentalists, but none of them remain creationists! As I recall, many forum members here used to be young-earth creationists (YECs) and, having since learned the truth, are now strong opponents to YEC. Are you starting to see a pattern here? (of course not, since your head is too firmly wedged up your ass) Raise your kids on lies and you will lose them when they learn the truth. What part of that are you too willfully stupid to understand? Now something for the others, since you are too willfully ignorant and too terrified of learning anything to bother to even look at it: From the talk.origins Index of Creationist Claims, Claim CD210:

Claim CD210:

---

Claim CD210:

There is nowhere near enough sediment deposited at the mouth of the Colorado River to account for ten million years worth of erosion.

​

Response:

1. The Colorado River delta itself is quite extensive. It covers 3,325 square miles (Sykes 1937) and is up to 3.5 miles deep (Jennings and Thompson 1986), containing over 10,000 cubic miles of the Colorado River's sediments from the last two to three million years. The sediments that were deposited by the river more than two to three million years ago have been shifted northwestward by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Sediments have also accumulated elsewhere. Some were deposited in flood plains between the delta and the Grand Canyon.
   ​
2. Wind is a major erosional force in parts of the Colorado River basin. Some sediments from Colorado and Wyoming were blown as far as the Atlantic Ocean.
   ​
3. Much of the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon are limestone and dolomite. These rocks eventually simply would have dissolved.

​

References:

1. Jennings, S. and G. R. Thompson, 1986. Diagensis of Plio-Pleistocene sediments of the Colorado River Delta, southern California. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56(1): 89-98.
2. Sykes, G., 1937. The Colorado River Delta. American Geographical Society Special Publication 19, New York: American Geographical Society.
3. Winker, C. D. and S. M. Kidwell, 1986. Paleocurrent evidence for lateral displacement of the Pliocene Colorado River Delta by the San Andreas fault system, southeastern California. Geology 14(9): 788-791.

---

The Colorado River delta contains over 10,000 cubic miles of the river's sediments (Response 1), and Candle3 is trying to claim we cannot account for 1,000 cubic miles? And he has the gall to take umbrage at us for calling him out as being such a stupid fucking idiot? There's also Claim CH581:

Claim CH581:

---

Claim CH581:

​

The Grand Canyon was created suddenly by the retreating waters of Noah's Flood.

​

Source:

Austin, Steve, 1995. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: Inst. for Creation Research.

​

Response:

​

1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
   • a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
   • anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
   • coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
   • streamlined relict islands.
   ​
   The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.
   ​
2. The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.
   ​
3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
   ​
4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
   ​
5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
   ​
6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
   ​
7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.
   ​
8. The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.
   ​
9. If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?
   ​
10. There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).

​

References:

1. Allen, J. A. et al., 1986. (see below)
   American Southwest, n.d., Mexican Hat. Mexican Hat, Southeast Utah For photos, see Serpentine ridge: Goosenecks State Park, Utah and A gooseneck of the San Juan: Goosenecks State Park, Utah
2. Baker, V. R., 1978. The Spokane flood controversy and the Martian outflow channels. Science 202: 1249-1256.
3. Bretz, J. H., 1969. The Lake Missoula floods and the Channeled Scabland. Journal of Geology 77: 505-543.
4. NASA Quest, n.d. Mars Team online photo gallery. http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/photos/pathfinder.html; see especially http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/photos/images/marspfsite.gif
   
5. Harris, D. V. and E. P. Kiver, 1985. The Geologic Story of the National Parks and Monuments. New York: Wiley.
6. Waitt, R. B. Jr., 1985. Case for periodic, colossal jökulhlaups from Pleistocene glacial Lake Missoula. Geological Society of America Bulletin 96: 1271-1286.
7. Winker, C. D., and S. M. Kidwell, 1986. Paleocurrent evidence for lateral displacement of the Pliocene Colorado River delta by the San Andreas fault system, southeastern California. Geology 14: 788-791.

​

Further Reading:

​

Allen, J. A., M. Burns and S. C. Sargent, 1986. Cataclysms on the Columbia. Portland, OR: Timber Press.

​

Beus, S. S. and M. Morales (eds.), 2002. Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd edition. London: Oxford University Press. (technical)

​

Chronic, Halka, 1983. Roadside Geology of Arizona. Missoula: Mountain Press Publishing.

​

Elders, Wilfred A., 1998. Bibliolatry in the Grand Canyon. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18(4) (July/Aug.): 8-15.

---

As for the Scablands referred to in Response #1, I already informed Candle3 about that ten days ago, so he has no excuse : But of course Candle3 will never pull his head out and learn anything. Sadly, it's against his religion to learn the truth. 

---

Paula Poundstone:  

Oh, there you go with that lie again! And now you've doubled down on it!OK, you claim to know HOW the universe and life came into existence. SO TELL US HOW! IN DETAIL! And know that just echolala'ing "goddidit!" IS NEVER AN EXPLAINATION OF HOW!"goddidit" is nothing more than an appeal to God of the Gaps, a flimsy coverup of the fact that you do not know.Your explanation of HOW must include a complete description of the processes involved IN DETAIL (which is only fair since you constantly demand detailed explanations of us). That explanation must include descriptions of all processes involved, both natural and supernatural, and descriptions of exactly what role they played at every stage and step of each process involved, including the precise interplay between all those processes -- the interface and interplay between the supernatural and natural would be very interesting to learn about.Of course, no human could possibly possess that kind of knowledge. No human could possibly possess any knowledge at all of any aspect of the supernatural, including whether the supernatural even exists. AND YET YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY CLAIMED TO POSSESS SUCH IMPOSSIBLE KNOWLEDGE! So reveal it to us, already!You possess no such knowledge and you know that you do not. In claiming to possess such knowledge, you are knowingly lying to us! I challenged you on this before and you ran away! Now you are lying to us yet again so I am challenging you on it yet again! And, caught yet again in your lie, you will run away yet again!Instead of constantly lying, just tell the truth. What the fuck is wrong with you? Has your false religion corrupted you so much that you think you would burst into flames if you ever even thought of turning to the truth? Just to make the requirements clear (not that you would ever read this part):You see (or should see if you had a functioning brain), the answer to a HOW question must include an actual description of HOW it works or happened. Responding with stating whodunnit does NOT answer a HOW question.For example, if we ask, "How did a Model T automobile work?", you simply saying "Henry Ford" would not even begin to answer our question. Instead, you would need to describe and explain the internal combustion engine and how its generated power is transferred through the power train to the wheels. Simple saying "Henry Ford" or "Karl Benz" would answer none of that.Nor does invoking an unknown process tell us anything. I offered such an example before. When we saw our first pocket electronic calculator circa 1968 and wondered HOW it worked, my father "answered" that question by saying, "It uses chips." Of course, he had no idea what "chips" were nor how they worked. Nor did I even though I had seen a film in junior high school about integrated circuit manufacturing (I didn't understand at the time what photography had to do with it). But since then, I learned in my junior college electronics textbook (a very good resource for its descriptions of how components work and how to calculate their electrical values; eg, calculate the capacitance of a capacitor) how the components of an IC circuit work as well as a review of how they are manufactured. But that's only explains HOW an IC works, not HOW a calculator works. That I learned in US Air Force Electronic Computer Systems Repairman tech school (3ABR30554) where we were training in the intimate details of the workings of a computer CPU. THAT is the level of detail you would need to meet in explaining to us HOW the universe or life began supernaturally. "goddidit" just does not cut it and it never would.If you refuse to 'fess up to your lie, then you must deliver the goods.Your move, puke!

Dwise, you wrote:"Fun fact: up to 80% of children raised as fundamentalist
Christians grow up to reject religion altogether (creationist
Mr. Kent Hovind cites that figure at 75%). Why are those
churches hemorrhaging their next generation? The churches
themselves are clueless, but you can learn why by reading
the testimonials in ex-Christian forums."***I know very well (not only kids) that people are falling from
the faith in Christ. The majority of them never had it to begin
with.Jesus talked, in Matthew 24, about the "last days." He spoke
of the great tribulation. The great tribulation is Satan's wrath
against Christianity.During this time Satan knows that his time as ruler of the
earth is about to end. In great wrath and fury, he tries to
destroy all Christians, as well as everyone else.He tries to destroy the entire earth. And he comes close, but
Christ returns in time to stop him. Christ talked about this in
verse 22."And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be
saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.A number of churches preach the pre-tribulation rapture.
They seem to think that they are more special than the
Prophets, Apostles, and Disciples of Christ, who were killed
for their unwavering allegiance to Him.Verses 29-31 clearly states that the elect are still on earth
during the Great Tribulation. Christ does not gather them to
himself until He returns. At the last trumpet.The last trumpet will be blown just as Christ returns to take
over the earth.A number of faithful Christians will be martyred. God allows
this because they make great testimonies for Him. People
will observe them gladly giving their life for Christ, and they
will reflect deeply on this.Christ will not put on one more than that person can bare.
Those that are martyred will have great faith in God.The point is that there will be a great falling away in the last
days.V.9 "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you,
and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake."V.10 "And then many will be offended, will betray one another,
and will hate one another."V.11 "Then many false Prophets will rise up and deceive many."V.12 "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many
will grow cold."V.13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved."The fact the many are falling away from Christ is actual proof
that the end is near.When Christ returns many will be so terrorized that they beg
the mountains to fall on them and hide them from His wrath.Dwise, if you are alive at that time, I can only imagine the
terror that you will feel.You are aiding Satan and his cause by continually spreading
lies about God and His creation. You help convince them that
our being alive is based on pure chance.God is a forgiving God, but I do not know where He draws the
line. Hopefully, you will feel deep remorse for your actions, and
God allows you an opportunity to change.

Percy, you wrote to my stating that God is allowing humans
6000 years to try to find peace and happiness without Him."And you know this how? Let me guess. You learned it in
the Bible."*** The days of creation in Genesis consists of both an
evening and a morning. All are 24 hour days.Jesus, as our Creator, knew what a 24 hour day consisted
of. Notice that God's days always begin in the evening, at
the going down of the sun.Speaking in John 11:9-10, Jesus said, "Are there not twelve
hours in a day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not
stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if
one walks in the night, he stumbles,..."Peter stated in 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, do not forget this
one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day."Revelation 20 states the elite rule with Christ for a 1000 years.
His earthly Kingdom will last a thousand years.Hebrews 4 speaks of entering into Christ's rest. It is a period
of rests that lasts a 1000 years.Verse 9. "There remains therefore a rest for the people of God "The word "rest" comes from "sabbatiamos " it refers to the
rest or repose of Christians and Christianity.Here the 7th day Sabbath is metaphorically referred to as a
period of rest that spans 1000 years.Applying the same standard to the other days of the week we
have six days with lengths of 1000 years each 6000 years.Most churches teach that we die and go to heaven. But God
did not give up on His desire to rule on earth. Satan did not
prevent God from doing this.It was what he planned with Adam and Eve. This is what will
happen when Jesus returns to set up His kingdom.

Your only response is to pile bullshit upon bullshit upon more bullshit.You have already proven to us that nothing you post can be assumed to be true. You have done this by posting known and provable falsehoods about things that we are able to test and verify. To quote philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, whom creationist Dr. Duane Gish made the mistake of praising without bothering to read his entire article (a common creationist failing):

Larry Laudan:

---

In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.

---

(I will repost below the more complete quote that I had posted in Message 140 on 19-Nov-2007)So far you have consistently lied about everything that we are able to check, so why should we believe anything you say that we are not able to check? Since you lie incessantly about that which we can test and verify, why should we believe that you would suddenly become truthful about things that are impossible to test?In the words of that great American philosopher, PFC Gomer Pyle:

Gomer Pyle:

---

Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

---

IOW, through your incessantly lying and display of crass dishonesty, you have thoroughly destroyed your credibility. Just as with Trump, we can safely assume that every word that comes from your mouth is a lie, since 99.999% of the time we would be right.You never did answer Percy's question to you which he asked repeatedly: The answer to his question is that your persistant lying and dishonesty has made it impossible for you to convince any person capable of thought about anything.There was a humor file about the many ways to shoot yourself in the foot with various programming languages. One language (¿BASIC?) was likened to a water pistol with which you keep shooting your foot until it becomes waterlogged, rots, and drops off. That feels suitably metaphoric for how you have shot off both your feet. Share and enjoy! 

---

As promised above, from Message 140 (19-Nov-2007): BTW, ever since 2007 and long before that no creationist has ever presented a real creation model with "voluminous evidence in its favour". Far worse than that, no creationist has ever even tried to.So since we can eliminate creationism, what's the only alternative. Creationists say that would be "evolution and atheism", but is that true? Of course not! That would be just yet another creationist lie.

Unless one believe the fairy tale that life and
consciousness leached from a rock.

Evidence?You keep going off on tangents about other stuff, stuff you also don't provide evidence for.But I don't care, because like I said, as long as you don't provide evidence for this statement up here, I don't need to move on.It's so simple. Just show evidence for this statement you made above. Or admit that you don't have any evidence and we can move on.

if you think birds and beavers co-existed with dinosaurs you're dumber than i thought and then you say something even stupider. How do sister-fucking hillbillies like you not drown in their soup bowl?

Whoa ... did I get that all wrong!I thought Prince evolved into

ZUC, you wrote:"Evidence?
​You keep going off on tangents about other stuff, stuff you
also don't provide evidence for."It's easy to find. Just Giggle:"Scientists who believe life leached from rocks."I didn't say that little men jumped out of rocks. Certainly you
did not entertain this thought.The chemicals that leached from the rock is what some have
suggested.They have to think of something, because it is impossible for
life to come from non-life.Your problem is the same problem that Dwise and others
have. This is simply that there is no known way that life can
create itself from nothing.Another problem is that there is no evidence, fossils or
otherwise, for molecules to man evolution.I believe in change. Change is observable, but the propaganda
that universities are spewing out is not observable. You can
have faith that they are right, but nothing more.

Why must you insist on being so crassly dishonest? YOU MADE THE CLAIM SO IT IS Y*O*U*R RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN CLAIM!It is not our responsibility to do your work for you! It is YOUR responsibility.Instead of doing nothing but giggling, DO YOUR JOB!Stop being such a stupid dishonest lying lazy puke! DO YOUR JOB!

This time you got a little closer, but you still couldn't answer the challenge. I mean come on, I don't care what some website may say, because that wasn't the point.YOU are saying that scientist believe this: Point me to your source for it, and seeing as scientist supposedly believe this to you, you must have a scientific source of any kind that shows this.If you do not, just admit it. I think people here would berate you less for just being honest and answering questions. In fact, if you actually, really let someone here challenge your sources and you display them honestly, you'd be getting a lot more discussion going in depth about them.But you just don't want to do that, and it's so odd to me. You don't believe in change though, I'll tell you that much, because otherwise you'd challenge yourself by being honest about sources for your statement.You'd say where you got this from: So once again, show me a scientist or anything scientific that states this, that shows that there are those that believe this.

Dwise, you wrote:YOU MADE THE CLAIM SO IT IS Y*O*U*R RESPONSIBILITY
TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN CLAIM!"***You are the ones with the problems, not me. Both you and
Zuc have seen articles that suggest the chemicals that can l
lead to the formation of life leached from rocks into murky
pools of water.What I mean by this being your problem is that without
admitting God as the Creator you still must show how life
arose from non-life.This is a gigantic problem for atheists. And, I will not let it
go.The law of biogenesis states that life cannot come from
non-life. Do scientists ignore this law? Yes, they do when
it serves their purpose.To suggest that life came from non-life is laughable.
Evolutionists claim that it did happen though. A simple cell
was first to evolve, they say. But the problem is that even a
simple cell is complex.Also, there is no known observable process by which new
genetic information can be added to an organism's
genetic code.Without new information an organism cannot change into a
higher form or organism.Over time everything loses information.My problem is not that evolutionists believe in a molecule to
man evolution. It is that they claim it is a fact, when it is merely
a worldview that one must accept by faith only.

Zuc, your problem is to show how life arose from non-life.The low of biogenesis is firm and immovable.This is a monumental problem for atheists.However, they can get around this problem if they just
acknowledge the Creator.Do you acknowledge the Creator?

Of course, he has no scientific source but rather solely creationist sources which present crude caricatures of "scientific sources". Ie, his creationist sources all lie about what scientists say.The reason why creationists must constantly lie is because their position is contrary to reality such that they believe they must disprove reality in order to prove their god. Needing evidence disproving reality, they can find no actual evidence (Seriously, how could reality possibly provide actual evidence against itself? Outside of an introductory philosophy course, that is.), so they have no other recourse but to lie about everything, including making up false stuff. BTW, if reality is the result of supernatural creation, then it would constitute The Creation (or at the very least the natural component thereof). That would mean that creationism opposes The Creation and tries to disprove The Creation and replace it with their own false narrative. Which makes creationism anti-Creation.The particular dishonest method that Candle3 is using (besides refusing to support his own claims) is misrepresenting science through gross caricature: Take a scientific idea, reduce it to and replace it with an over-simplified ridiculous summary statement, a caricature (such as the one in question here), insist that that caricature is the defining statement of that scientific idea, and attack that strawman caricature instead of the actual idea.The problems with Candle3's method of attack are many and easily recognized; eg, strawmaning, using a form of reductio ad absurdum which is appeal to ridicule:

Appeal to Ridicule:

---

Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a multi-layered circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace event or to another irrelevant thing based on comedic timing, or wordplay. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or position, attempting to inspire a strong emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by mocking the argument's representative foundation in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. The person using the tactic is often sarcastic in their argument.

---

Creationists resort to that dishonest ploy constantly. They especially avoid actual scientific publication of their target, but instead look for a scientist engaged in casual conversation or a non-scientific presentation where one is not constantly meticulous about wording (or in the case of the Colin Patterson misrepresentation where he was in an exchange of ideas involving hypotheticals) in a for a metaphoric statement or analogy that they can then misrepresent as "what scientists believe".For example, we could use the same technique to prove that "electronicists" (atheistic idiots who believe in electronics) believe that "electronic devices are made of sand put together by photography", the very idea of which is so ridiculous that electronics could never work. We do extract silicon from sand and we do use photography to control the etching of and infusing of impurities into that silicon to create the integrated circuits, but obviously insisting that "electonicists" believe that "smartphones are made of sand and photography" is a lie by intention.Everything creationists say is a lie. Besides being a creationist himself, Candle3 relies entirely on creationist sources, which contain nothing but lies. Therefore, everything he posts is a lie.Candle3 is a creationist, so he will never come clean and behave honestly. He's like the scorpion in the over-used fable of the frog and the scorpion: he will always lie because it is in his nature.