Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[EricH]

There are credentialed creationist scientists who energetically criticize and reject evolution. Becasue there may be unecpainable gaps in the fossil record creationism must be true. You can find some on the Discovery Institute site.

Are you talking about the Discovery Institute? Have you read anything they have written, and do you find their arguments persuasive? I would love to talk about some of the nonsense they come up with. Why don't you pick one or two of their "peer reviewed" papers so we can have a discussion.

 

[Elixir]

Paid Spokespersons For Riding Dinosaurs

Scientists are people. Many leverage their credentials for money. Creationists pay well because they bilk well. DI is full of them.
A few of them are sheer religious nutbars, but most are like Behe, continuing to peddle admitted nonsense (e.g. “irreducible complexity”) because his rubes desperately want to buy it.

 

[steve_bank]

There are credentialed creationist scientists who energetically criticize and reject evolution. Becasue there may be unecpainable gaps in the fossil record creationism must be true. You can find some on the Discovery Institute site.

Are you talking about the Discovery Institute? Have you read anything they have written, and do you find their arguments persuasive? I would love to talk about some of the nonsense they come up with. Why don't you pick one or two of their "peer reviewed" papers so we can have a discussion.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was responding to your saying something about energetic criticism of the fossil record among scientists.

There undoubtedly is among credible archeologists.

Are you an atheist defending the Christian creationist Discovery Institute?

 

[EricH]

Are you an atheist defending the Christian creationist Discovery Institute?

No. I read some of their material for entertainment.

 

[steve_bank]

Are you an atheist defending the Christian creationist Discovery Institute?

No. I read some of their material for entertainment.

Same here.

 

[Swammerdami]

"Old species change to new species? How come there are still monkeys? Something fishy."

Fishy? Monkeys, humans and creationists all descend from lobe-finned fish. How come there are still lobe-finned fish? Now that's fishy!

 

[Learner]

You've got a holy book that only goes back a couple thousand years, and hasn't seen any updates.

Waitaminit! No updates? Why are there a shitload of versions then? Queen James alone added and subtracted whole swaths.

Ah good...
... to both your responses.
The religious are up-to-date, quite up there with the non-religious, which in fact means they're also in the scientific community! How's about that? The only thing perhaps, is that atheists need to update their arguments.

I don't have an argument. I have a fossil record. One that you are denying exists.

No not denying anything accept , the fossil records has had its issues.

Hi Learner. Sounds like you know what you are talking about. Can you cite a few of the known issues with the fossil record so we can discuss?

Hi Eric,

I remember there were certain discoveries and experiments that's all. I got to go through old notes (better discussing via desktop- edited this post 7 times). Not going to give much on the top of my head, there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones. Some these bones IIRC were discovered buried near the surface. This was some years back but things like these did cause a few issues. ( I just got to revise a bit).

Hi. I don't understand why you are not able make a cohesive argument to support your assertion that the fossil record "has issues". What was the issue with the so called soft tissue discovered under a SEM in a bone believed to be many millions of years old?

Hi,

Yeah sorry about that.. so, as I mentioned before (via phone) , I was alluding to the moment of conflict back in the mid 2000s which gave some doubt to the previous understanding causing some issues with certain dating. Although having said that, it's not a major problem as such to 'either side' of the argument, since the accuracy of dating... isn't quite accurate as we'd like it to be. I would notice this doubt for example by the implication of few words in the bold text below stated by Dr. Sweitzer, (which I've taken an excerpt from an interview).

Dr. M. Sweitzer says:

"I don’t think my being a Christian has anything to do with the fact that the data I’m proposing is challenging. I’ve only had one or two people say they don’t trust my science because of my faith. So if I’m doing science according to the rules, which I’m doing to honor God, and I’m aware that anything and everything I do could be proven wrong tomorrow, then my job is to be as careful and cautious as I can and not overstate my data. All I can do is the best that I can do...

...So, that leaves us with two alternatives for interpretation: either the dinosaurs aren’t as old as we think they are, or maybe we don’t know exactly how these things get preserved".

Have you read the original paper, the peer reviews and further work that developed upon this finding? What is the scientific consensus on this finding today?

After-the-fact, well yes, naturally indeed!

Of course, it's natural to proceed for further development and further findings,... being necessary 'updates' following through 'after' the tissue-in-bone was discovered in the lab - when previously it was thought it was 'not to be possible' for tissue to survive that long - which was the current consensus. Anyway, Dr. M. Sweitzer was conducting her papers to produce for the people in the science community, who were hostile towards her and experiments... naturally causing immediate reactions; with unexpected results having discord with the understanding of tissue decay etc.. which was current then.

You casually throw aside many millions of hours of hard work by scientists and millions of fossils that have advanced our knowledge of the history of life with a casual statement like "the fossil record has issues" when you appear to know nothing about the subject.

Casually throw aside millions of hours [...], like I'm doing mentioning scientist Mary Sweitzer and her discovery..? That's a ridiculous falsity. I mean... how much reasoning is required to process what scientists do in their labs? It appears, I know something... something about existing interviews and statements made by individuals like Dr. M. Sweitzer.

You haven't given me much to respond to, so I looked up your profile and read your posts on similar topics. I discovered that you often interject authoritative sounding opinions in such discussions and also make it painfully obvious that you possess neither knowledge or experience in the area to be speaking from such authority. This is typical creationist behavior.

You may have been a little too eager to respond back to my previous post, because you've made yet another accusation error. I won't say this a typical atheist behavior i.e. because people don't act the same. If you look and read again through all those posts, you may notice I am usually responding to the 'opinions of posters', and not science, or scientists. Science the 'system of knowledge' isn't aligned to either the atheist or the believer, to state-the-obvious, ironically even when both sides are in the science community. To coin the phrase, I should have free license' to interject into threads like this one, when the topic of the thread comprises dialogue relating to 'Science v God' etc..

The most energetic criticisms of fossil finds are often generated by other scientists working in the field. Take for example the recent series of papers by Lee Berger regarding the Homo naledi finds in the Rising Star cave system in Africa. Dr Berger concluded that H naledi engaged in the practice of ritual burial of the dead and also created artwork on cave walls based on evidence that can best be described as sketchy. The problem here is that H naledi had a cranial capacity of 400cc, and Dr Berger's conclusions about the placement and provenance of the buried remains can likely be explained just as well by natural causes. Dr Berger was crucified in the peer review process, and rightly so in my opinion. So yes, there are sometimes issues with the findings of scientists, but those are almost always corrected by other scientists.

Right, so sometimes you find issues with findings. We agree with the sentence highlighted in bold letters, although one could be mistaken to think the sentence softly hints another falsity, giving some mpression that "it's me who's correcting the scientists"! Fortunately we have Dr. Sweitzer who corrected other scientists who weren't um...correct?

And the discovery of the fossils is of enormous significance in advancing our knowledge of hominins, no matter that controversy surrounding some of the interpretations provided by the Principal Scientist. To provide commentary and criticism of someone's work you need to have a minimum degree of qualification in the subject, and it is clear to me that you do not pass this admittedly low bar.

I insert the previous: 'I mean... how much reasoning is required to process what scientists say and do in their labs? '

I take the cue from Bomb#20 (thumbs up) who said in a post that he only reports the information and it's up to those on the thread to decide what they make from it.. I think you can get very good conversations out of that. Although I've not been so articulate, I will say here, I reported Dr. Sweitzers findings, with no hints at all. suggesting evolution is wrong, or, that the young earth is right.

 

[Elixir]

What a bunch of shit apologetics, Learner.
We KNOW how “soft tissue” gets “preserved” for millions of years. But -
You don’t know how radioisotopes can show millions of years of decay in only a few thousand years.
Your fairy tale is a fairy tale. It’s pitiful and embarrassing to see a presumable adult human reduced to the infantile prevarications you offer to support that fairy tale.

 

[Learner]

What a bunch of shit apologetics, Learner.
We KNOW how “soft tissue” gets “preserved” for millions of years. But -
You don’t know how radioisotopes can show millions of years of decay in only a few thousand years.

Didn't you say it was impossible previously?

Your fairy tale is a fairy tale. It’s pitiful and embarrassing to see a presumable adult human reduced to the infantile prevarications you offer to support that fairy tale.

But the scientist that corrected the other scientists is a creationist? How many times do I have to point out to you, evolution is accepted by many theists?

 

[Elixir]

Didn't you say it was impossible previously?

No. Quote, please.
I do recall re-posting the bit about how the (proven) presence of ferrous nanoparticles contributes to the preservation process.

But the scientist that corrected the other scientists is a creationist?

Is that a question phrased as a question? Ms. Schweitzer is not a creo.
But if a creo once corrected someone on something, what would that prove?
That science is wrong? NO.
That the creo fantasy is right? NO.
But it makes you feel good? YES.
The upshot; your fantasy is a fantasy, and your desperation to find some shred of reality to which you can attach it, is infantile and embarrassing.

How many times do I have to point out to you, evolution is accepted by many theists?

Until you’re blue in the face, if you like.
Theism isn’t Yeckery.

 

[Learner]

there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones.

Why are bringing up more debunked complaints?

Missed asking..
...what was debunked ?

The "impossibility" of soft tissue "preservation" over millions of years.

Absolutely!

Briefly.
The debunk isn't where you would logically conceive and expect it to be. The experiments were done! The logical thought of the observation: If it IS the case that soft tissue is found in the experiment...then the age of these particular bones thought to be 'millions of years old' may not be correct.

So only the bones without soft tissue (almost all of them?) are millions of years old. Understood. Thanks for clearing that up.

Let me clear it up a bit more (I admit the post was a bit messy). Anyway I acknowledged him coming to the very particular part I was focusing on, hitting the mark, so to speak when he 'mentioned the impossibility on the 'soft tissue preservation' [...]. That's why I said absolutely when I asked what was debunked... he had got it, what it was I was underlining.

 

[Elixir]

Let me clear it up a bit more (I admit the post was a bit messy). Anyway I acknowledged him coming to the very particular part I was focusing on, hitting the mark, so to speak when he 'mentioned the impossibility on the 'soft tissue preservation' [...]. That's why I said absolutely when I asked what was debunked... he had got it, what it was I was underlining.

Holy fuck what a mess. (Hint: I mentioned the DEBUNKING of the impossibility of "soft tissue" preservation.
No wonder creos are such easy marks.

 

[EricH]

Hi,

Yeah sorry about that.. so, as I mentioned before (via phone) , I was alluding to the moment of conflict back in the mid 2000s which gave some doubt to the previous understanding causing some issues with certain dating. Although having said that, it's not a major problem as such to 'either side' of the argument, since the accuracy of dating... isn't quite accurate as we'd like it to be. I would notice this doubt for example by the implication of few words in the bold text below stated by Dr. Sweitzer, (which I've taken an excerpt from an interview).

Dr. M. Sweitzer says:

"I don’t think my being a Christian has anything to do with the fact that the data I’m proposing is challenging. I’ve only had one or two people say they don’t trust my science because of my faith. So if I’m doing science according to the rules, which I’m doing to honor God, and I’m aware that anything and everything I do could be proven wrong tomorrow, then my job is to be as careful and cautious as I can and not overstate my data. All I can do is the best that I can do...

...So, that leaves us with two alternatives for interpretation: either the dinosaurs aren’t as old as we think they are, or maybe we don’t know exactly how these things get preserved".

Learner, I am going to be blunt. You are a fool. It is possible that you are incredibly dishonest, but I think the former interpretation is more likely and more charitable, so I am going to assume that. In my previous post I had asked you if you had read the papers written on the subject by Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer (not Sweitzer as you stated). You replied yes. So it is baffling to me that you failed to mention anything about Dr. Schweitzer's later work on the subject. Even in the original paper reporting her findings, she never asserted that a young earth (Cretaceous rocks much younger than 66 Myr) as a possibility - she did just the opposite. She ruled that out as a possibility. She focused on two other explanations, the development of biofilms, and the effects of cross-linking with iron particles found in blood cells. In 2019, after more than a decade of research in this area along with actual experiments on preservation of soft tissue in bird bone soft tissue, she concluded:

We demonstrate the endogeneity of the fossil vessel tissues, as well as the presence of type I collagen in the outermost vessel layers, using imaging, diffraction, spectroscopy, and immunohistochemistry. Then, we use data derived from synchrotron FTIR studies of the T. rex vessels to analyse their crosslink character, with comparison against two non-enzymatic Fenton chemistry- and glycation-treated extant chicken samples. We also provide supporting X-ray microprobe analyses of the chemical state of these fossil tissues to support our conclusion that non-enzymatic crosslinking pathways likely contributed to stabilizing, and thus preserving, these T. rex vessels.

Dr. Schweitzer actually tells us that the preservation of the soft tissue (blood vessels and cell structure) in the 2003 Cretaceous age female T. rex femur was caused by natural means, and that the fossil is of Cretaceous age. But you forgot to tell us this important fact, instead choosing to spread innuendo, hint and allegations ( to borrow from Paul Simon who is one of my favorite songwriters). You are either a fool, in that you don't understand what you read, or you are deliberately obscuring key facts that you do know about in order to propagate a lie. I think its the former.

Casually throw aside millions of hours [...], like I'm doing mentioning scientist Mary Sweitzer and her discovery..? That's a ridiculous falsity. I mean... how much reasoning is required to process what scientists do in their labs? It appears, I know something... something about existing interviews and statements made by individuals like Dr. M. Sweitzer.

You may have been a little too eager to respond back to my previous post, because you've made yet another accusation error. I won't say this a typical atheist behavior i.e. because people don't act the same. If you look and read again through all those posts, you may notice I am usually responding to the 'opinions of posters', and not science, or scientists. Science the 'system of knowledge' isn't aligned to either the atheist or the believer, to state-the-obvious, ironically even when both sides are in the science community. To coin the phrase, I should have free license' to interject into threads like this one, when the topic of the thread comprises dialogue relating to 'Science v God' etc..

Right, so sometimes you find issues with findings. We agree with the sentence highlighted in bold letters, although one could be mistaken to think the sentence softly hints another falsity, giving some mpression that "it's me who's correcting the scientists"! Fortunately we have Dr. Sweitzer who corrected other scientists who weren't um...correct?

You just don't get it. Dr. Schweitzer demonstrated that certain types of soft tissue can be preserved in the presence of certain chemicals under certain conditions. She did not prove that the earth is young, nor did she even suggest such a possibility as a serious contender. That is a fiction some creationists like to spread.


Life is short and I am not going to waste my time arguing with a fool. If you believe in special creation dating back just a few thousand years despite the mountain of evidence telling us otherwise, you are twice a fool.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones.

Why are bringing up more debunked complaints?

Missed asking..
...what was debunked ?

The "impossibility" of soft tissue "preservation" over millions of years.

Absolutely!

Briefly.
The debunk isn't where you would logically conceive and expect it to be. The experiments were done! The logical thought of the observation: If it IS the case that soft tissue is found in the experiment...then the age of these particular bones thought to be 'millions of years old' may not be correct.

So only the bones without soft tissue (almost all of them?) are millions of years old. Understood. Thanks for clearing that up.

Let me clear it up a bit more (I admit the post was a bit messy). Anyway I acknowledged him coming to the very particular part I was focusing on, hitting the mark, so to speak when he 'mentioned the impossibility on the 'soft tissue preservation' [...]. That's why I said absolutely when I asked what was debunked... he had got it, what it was I was underlining.

You didn't remotely answer my question.

 

[EricH]

You didn't remotely answer my question.

At this point I don't believe he even understands the question.

 

[Elixir]

You didn't remotely answer my question.

At this point I don't believe he even understands the question.

Zackly.
That’s why I won’t ask him how Mr. Shubin found Tik.

 

[Learner]

Hi,

Yeah sorry about that.. so, as I mentioned before (via phone) , I was alluding to the moment of conflict back in the mid 2000s which gave some doubt to the previous understanding causing some issues with certain dating. Although having said that, it's not a major problem as such to 'either side' of the argument, since the accuracy of dating... isn't quite accurate as we'd like it to be. I would notice this doubt for example by the implication of few words in the bold text below stated by Dr. Sweitzer, (which I've taken an excerpt from an interview).

Dr. M. Sweitzer says:

"I don’t think my being a Christian has anything to do with the fact that the data I’m proposing is challenging. I’ve only had one or two people say they don’t trust my science because of my faith. So if I’m doing science according to the rules, which I’m doing to honor God, and I’m aware that anything and everything I do could be proven wrong tomorrow, then my job is to be as careful and cautious as I can and not overstate my data. All I can do is the best that I can do...

...So, that leaves us with two alternatives for interpretation: either the dinosaurs aren’t as old as we think they are, or maybe we don’t know exactly how these things get preserved".

Learner, I am going to be blunt. You are a fool. It is possible that you are incredibly dishonest, but I think the former interpretation is more likely and more charitable, so I am going to assume that.

Eric, that's fine, be blunt. I think for some, being blunt is expressing what one would like to think of another; being a preferred 'characterisation' of a person, who's being portrayed seemingly by a "fair" opinion presentation, which wouldn't really be quite an honest one.. This type of "bluntness" is not unusual.

In my previous post I had asked you if you had read the papers written on the subject by Dr. Mary H. Schweitzer (not Sweitzer as you stated). You replied yes. So it is baffling to me that you failed to mention anything about Dr. Schweitzer's later work on the subject. Even in the original paper reporting her findings, she never asserted that a young earth (Cretaceous rocks much younger than 66 Myr) as a possibility - she did just the opposite. She ruled that out as a possibility. She focused on two other explanations, the development of biofilms, and the effects of cross-linking with iron particles found in blood cells. In 2019, after more than a decade of research in this area along with actual experiments on preservation of soft tissue in bird bone soft tissue, she concluded:

SNAP! Baffling is mutual. What I find baffling is the insistent attempt to purposely distort my view on Schwetizer and her findings (oops, yes misspelling her name first time automatically stuck with me). like it is with one or two of you, this is pure classic straw-manning! Other than that this should confidently be a breeze for your responding argument, which uncannily is a response "to a non-existent argument" I never made. Such confidence should provide you (plural) the ability to underline, highlight or quote where it is, in any post, showing me arrogantly and boldly, disagreeing with Schweitzer.

What are you seeing? Like our forum friend Elixir, "impressively" demonstrating " your knowledge (plural), how organic processes work, is a behavior that seems like something to hide behind. when the responses are poor. Right back to the initial question that was of asked me - what I meant, when I said there were a few issues of the fossil records.

As I said, I would need to revise (and refresh) a little, on a few things especially on Schweitzers current position, just in case it changed from her previous position (the change from the time when I was into all this some years ago,, plus other interesting discoveries and studies etc.). I've mentioned Schweitzer once or twice on the forum a few years ago (with the correct spelling). The link that you kindly provided, ' she concluded' or asking about the original paper is a misplaced in the way you're using it. - it's very useful information but
again... you're trying to address a non-existent argument.

We demonstrate the endogeneity of the fossil vessel tissues, as well as the presence of type I collagen in the outermost vessel layers, using imaging, diffraction, spectroscopy, and immunohistochemistry. Then, we use data derived from synchrotron FTIR studies of the T. rex vessels to analyse their crosslink character, with comparison against two non-enzymatic Fenton chemistry- and glycation-treated extant chicken samples. We also provide supporting X-ray microprobe analyses of the chemical state of these fossil tissues to support our conclusion that non-enzymatic crosslinking pathways likely contributed to stabilizing, and thus preserving, these T. rex vessels.

Dr. Schweitzer actually tells us that the preservation of the soft tissue (blood vessels and cell structure) in the 2003 Cretaceous age female T. rex femur was caused by natural means, and that the fossil is of Cretaceous age. But you forgot to tell us this important fact, instead choosing to spread innuendo, hint and allegations ( to borrow from Paul Simon who is one of my favorite songwriters). You are either a fool, in that you don't understand what you read, or you are deliberately obscuring key facts that you do know about in order to propagate a lie. I think its the former.

More unnecessary demonstrations. Flogging-a-dead-horse and straw-manning in the same post.

I have answered the question when asked what I meant by 'some dating issues?' The answer isn't difficult - I posted a sentence from Dr. Schweitzer which itself... a mere sentence, explains quite effectively an issue here - although it doesn't seem clear here for some people. Instead we see in front of our own eyes, a simple question that was initially asked, go through its process of metamorphosis,, deducing from your (plural) posts that seems to be addressing someone else's responses other than mine, that fits another different question from the initial one asked of me.


...So, that leaves us with two alternatives for interpretation: either the dinosaurs aren’t as old as we think they are, or maybe we don’t know exactly how these things get preserved".

Casually throw aside millions of hours [...], like I'm doing mentioning scientist Mary Sweitzer and her discovery..? That's a ridiculous falsity. I mean... how much reasoning is required to process what scientists do in their labs? It appears, I know something... something about existing interviews and statements made by individuals like Dr. M. Sweitzer.

You may have been a little too eager to respond back to my previous post, because you've made yet another accusation error. I won't say this a typical atheist behavior i.e. because people don't act the same. If you look and read again through all those posts, you may notice I am usually responding to the 'opinions of posters', and not science, or scientists. Science the 'system of knowledge' isn't aligned to either the atheist or the believer, to state-the-obvious, ironically even when both sides are in the science community. To coin the phrase, I should have free license' to interject into threads like this one, when the topic of the thread comprises dialogue relating to 'Science v God' etc..

Right, so sometimes you find issues with findings. We agree with the sentence highlighted in bold letters, although one could be mistaken to think the sentence softly hints another falsity, giving some mpression that "it's me who's correcting the scientists"! Fortunately we have Dr. Sweitzer who corrected other scientists who weren't um...correct?

You just don't get it. Dr. Schweitzer demonstrated that certain types of soft tissue can be preserved in the presence of certain chemicals under certain conditions. She did not prove that the earth is young, nor did she even suggest such a possibility as a serious contender. That is a fiction some creationists like to spread.

Life is short and I am not going to waste my time arguing with a fool. If you believe in special creation dating back just a few thousand years despite the mountain of evidence telling us otherwise, you are twice a fool.

I am aware some YECs do use her hard work, which she herself keeps telling people she doesn't condone causing her unnecessary grief especially in the science community. She isn't a young earth creationist, and to use her work for YEC shouldn't make sense. There is another who's repeated Dr. Schweitzers experiment, I've found, who is a young earth creationist and suggest it to be so, which suits the young creationists.

Which brings me to another idea : I have wandered how interesting it could be, if people instead considered placing their findings not at either end of the two extreme dates but rather somewhere in between - the Goldilocks principal, if you will, the not-so-young earth and the not-so-old-earth. I'm free to ponder on the thought while newer updates keep coming in.

It is foolish to argue about a non-existent argument I never made. Yes it's a waste of time, especially from the angle that a "fool" is highlighting the foolish attempts of an intellectual.

 

[Elixir]

I think for some, being blunt is expressing what one would like to think of another; being a preferred 'characterisation' of a person, who's being portrayed seemingly by a "fair" opinion presentation, which wouldn't really be quite an honest one..

No, pretty sure he’s being 100% straight with you. I know his opinion is very close to my own, and that of people smarter and better informed than myself.
You are a fool.

This type of "bluntness" is not unusual.

That just might be another indicator that he’s spot on. Many people consider the sky to be blue, too.

Goldilocks principles don’t apply to stark facts, much as you wish they did. And you wouldn’t want them to. The earth is around 4 billion years old, the observable universe is around 13 billion years old and negotiating it down to 2 billion and 6 billion to accommodate your Goldilocks suggestion, doesn’t help your case whatsoever, and does great disservice to those who have discovered the truth.

A suggestion: more words don’t always engender more meaning. If you can’t say it plainly and concisely, you’re probably not expressing something that is true.

 

[Learner]

I think for some, being blunt is expressing what one would like to think of another; being a preferred 'characterisation' of a person, who's being portrayed seemingly by a "fair" opinion presentation, which wouldn't really be quite an honest one..

No, pretty sure he’s being 100% straight with you. I know his opinion is very close to my own, and that of people smarter and better informed than myself.
You are a fool.

Yeah there's a verse somewhere about people professing to be wise, but turn out to be fools.

This type of "bluntness" is not unusual.

That just might be another indicator that he’s spot on. Many people consider the sky to be blue, too.

Its a tactic that some can't do without in making arguments..

Goldilocks principles don’t apply to stark facts, much as you wish they did. And you wouldn’t want them to. The earth is around 4 billion years old, the observable universe is around 13 billion years old and negotiating it down to 2 billion and 6 billion to accommodate your Goldilocks suggestion, doesn’t help your case whatsoever, and does great disservice to those who have discovered the truth.

A suggestion: more words don’t always engender more meaning. If you can’t say it plainly and concisely, you’re probably not expressing something that is true.

Yes well I didn't say I believed n it. I also pondered the thought if it were possible people took vacations to Mars.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah there's a verse somewhere about people professing to be wise, but turn out to be fools.

Yeah trying to feed you the truth could be considered a “tactic”. And calling it a tactic is probably a requirement for a person trying to deny the truth.
You don’t need to object so strenuously to the facts that are brought up here; the invincibility of your ignorance is not being contested.