Is ANYONE else getting TIREd of

[Tiredman]

There is a new show coming and I will enjoy the threads and comments on it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[sandchip]

I find it fascinating that my short, most benign analogy on creation was deleted while the post of those who deny it still stand. Often the case however for those who dare stand for Him.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Here's exactly what you are doing:

b3yOnd3r :I want cataloged evidence, hard scientific proof, that leprechauns don't exist . And unless you can prove that (to my satisfaction) then we must therefore conclude, that leprechauns HAVE to exist. Eh ?

Obviously the burden of proof would be on the claimant. So too is it with Oak Island.

And I see that you are well-aware of how examples of over-active imaginations and telephone games gone-awry can VERY MUCH HAPPEN. So why can't you allow that this is likely what happened here as well ?

NO ONE can go back 150 yrs ago and "prove" that telephone game occurred . Or that someone's imagination was over-active. You know full well that's impossible. I can give you examples of how it occurs. But you've already 'dissed that as non-conclusive (you won't accept that ), right ? So you're already playing wack-a-mole, moving goal posts, etc....

Well, if you can't provide any evidence, then you are going by faith/speculation. Correct?

People here say, "it's a hoax". Well, where is your proof? Have you carbon tested the coconut fibers? Have you interviewed local residents? Where are the links backing up the hoax claims?

I'm not trying to convince YOU to believe, I am asking you to convince ME not to believe!!!

 

[Megalodon]

I find it fascinating that my short, most benign analogy on creation was deleted while the post of those who deny it still stand. Often the case however for those who dare stand for Him.

I find it not fascinating but sad that there are dishonest people who misrepresent the facts like the evolution of strains of bacteria into antibiotic resistant strains and then run with their faith based beliefs about some other issue entirely like creationism or the origins of life on earth. You are free to believe what you want but you are not entitled to your own "alternative facts". Put your money where your mouth is and turn down that flu shot, or new antibiotic, or vaccine that was developed to fight the most newly evolved strains of bacteria. Demand that your gov't spray poisons to control mosquitoes that evolved resistance to those poisons but end up killing off the natural mosquito predators and the pollinators we need.

And thank you to the mods for deleting such political posts.

 

[Duckshot]

I find it astounding that a "scientist" would insist that genetic material can be spontaneously added to DNA by natural means when such has not been observed directly. It a freaking guess for crying out loud. Natural selection occurs but no species has ever been observed changing into a different species.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well, if you can't provide any evidence, then you are going by faith/speculation. Correct? ...

Why doesn't this statement work both ways ?? You seem to starting with a "given premise" that it exists. If we start with that assumption, then sure, everything you're saying does logically follow. Ie.: that the doubters are "taking their doubt by blind faith and speculation".

But since when has it been shown to be true ? Why this starting premise of yours ? Why can't it be said that YOU (the treasure believer) are the one "going by faith/speculation' ? Why does that finger only seem to point one way ?

And again, you keep trying to shift the burden of proof on the skeptics to DISprove it. What happened to my leprechaun analogy ? Did that go right over your head ? How is it not exactly analogous to what you are trying to do here ?

.... Have you carbon tested the coconut fibers? Have you interviewed local residents? Where are the links backing up the hoax claims?.....

It's not going to matter how long the game of "wack-a-mole goes on for. Like to "shoot down" the various aspects of the story. Because here's exactly what the faithful will do next: They will find one extreme way, that something *could* have occurred. No matter how unlikely, yet ... the mere fact that something *could* have happened, would mean, to them, that IT DID.

For example, I might walk backwards from Calif. to New York. It *is* possible, after all, given enough years, right ? So does that mean I necessarily will or did ? OF COURSE NOT. So too is it with Oak Island. If someone tries to show that all this heavy equipment is having all that trouble digging down that deep (water tables, etc...) then HOW IN THE WORLD did a bunch of dudes with hand tools do that in an era before heavy equipment ? To which the faithful will point out something : "Well, gee, they built the Egyptian pyramids with nothing but manual labor, right ? And Cornish miners in the 1600s dug tunnels to xx ft. deep, right ? "

No matter what element of the story someone goes to disprove, a believer can come along and find some far-fetched strange way, where .... given enough slaves, and enough years, and enough coconut fibers and enough conspiracy theories, *might* be possible. Just as in it might be possible for me to walk backwards to NY.

So I repeat: The burden of proof is on you. Not us.

 

[Philvis]

There is a new show coming and I will enjoy the threads and comments on it.

Which show do you speak of? If it's what I think it is, I don't think we will be allowed to criticize that show!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... If it's what I think it is, I don't think we will be allowed to criticize that show!

I didn't say it !

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Why doesn't this statement work both ways ?? You seem to starting with a "given premise" that it exists. If we start with that assumption, then sure, everything you're saying does logically follow. Ie.: that the doubters are "taking their doubt by blind faith and speculation".

I already believe in certain aspects pertaining to OI. So you are telling me I have to provide evidence to re-convince me? I already believe that makes no sense. OR are you saying that I have to provide my proof so you can disprove it? If that's the case, I can disprove anything.

But since when has it been shown to be true ? Why this starting premise of yours ? Why can't it be said that YOU (the treasure believer) are the one "going by faith/speculation' ? Why does that finger only seem to point one way ?

It's doesn't. I am trying to have someone here convince me otherwise.

And again, you keep trying to shift the burden of proof on the skeptics to DISprove it. What happened to my leprechaun analogy ? Did that go right over your head ? How is it not exactly analogous to what you are trying to do here ?

Because I want to not believe so I am asking for whatever convinced you(the skeptics) not to believe or can't you do that? I am not trying to convince you, you are trying to convince me and I want to be convinced...with proof not speculation.

It's not going to matter how long the game of "wack-a-mole goes on for. Like to "shoot down" the various aspects of the story. Because here's exactly what the faithful will do next: They will find one extreme way, that something *could* have occurred. No matter how unlikely, yet ... the mere fact that something *could* have happened, would mean, to them, that IT DID.

I promised you I wouldn't contest ANY evidence provided.

For example, I might walk backwards from Calif. to New York. It *is* possible, after all, given enough years, right ? So does that mean I necessarily will or did ? OF COURSE NOT. So too is it with Oak Island. If someone tries to show that all this heavy equipment is having all that trouble digging down that deep (water tables, etc...) then HOW IN THE WORLD did a bunch of dudes with hand tools do that in an era before heavy equipment ? To which the faithful will point out something : "Well, gee, they built the Egyptian pyramids with nothing but manual labor, right ? And Cornish miners in the 1600s dug tunnels to xx ft. deep, right ? "

We don't know what has been done without evidence. Until then I can speculate that no one can walk backwards at all. Does't mean it's true. However if I provide a video or some scientific data, then I have a case.

No matter what element of the story someone goes to disprove, a believer can come along and find some far-fetched strange way, where .... given enough slaves, and enough years, and enough coconut fibers and enough conspiracy theories, *might* be possible. Just as in it might be possible for me to walk backwards to NY.

I promised you I wouldn't contest ANY evidence provided.

So I repeat: The burden of proof is on you. Not us.

So the burden of proof to convince you is on me I AGREE. But i'm not trying to convince you and I know you don't believe and I am fine with it, wouldn't want to change that. However, I am asking you to convince me with your proof. Not common sense, not speculation, and not guess work. This isn't a hard concept to grasp Tom.

Please see above

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I promised you I wouldn't contest ANY evidence provided....

Ok then, I'll take you up on your promise:

The evidence is: No treasures recovered, despite SERIOUS hardcore digging up the landscape for 150 yrs.

To most people that is "evidence". So if I tell you "there are leprechauns under my bed", all that you'd have to do is look under the bed, observe that there are no leprechauns, and put the notion to rest. Right ? Ok, same for Oak Island .

And although I know you promised not to play "wack-a-mole", yet ... to those who WOULD dispute my "evidence". all they would merely need to say is: A little more to the right. A little more to the left. A little deeper.

Same for the leprechaun analogy. I could say "they knew you were coming, so they temporarily left". Or "they are invisible every 3rd Friday, that's why you just don't happen to see them today. But trust me, they are there. "

However, I know you promised not to dispute the evidence I would cite. So I take it we have concluded this conversation. Eh ?

 

[Megalodon]

I find it astounding that a "scientist" would insist that genetic material can be spontaneously added to DNA by natural means when such has not been observed directly. It a freaking guess for crying out loud. Natural selection occurs but no species has ever been observed changing into a different species.

Natural selection is one of many ways that evolution occurs, not the only one. And it is ridiculous (tempted to say stronger words here) to state that evolution requires "genetic material spontaneously added to DNA". There is variation within every population (except for a few species, since there are always exceptions) and some members of a population will thrive more when their environment changes. Those with the genetic material that allows them to thrive will diverge in isolation (think glaciers, etc). A glacier splitting a population in two will allow the two isolated groups to diverge in isolation. The members of the population that have the ability to reproduce more in their new environments will thrive. Others will die out. When the two changed groups, call them species, or sub-species or whatever, come back together, they may or may not be capable of reproducing with each other. But even if eggs from one group can be fertilized with sperm from the other group, the two may still be new taxa - whatever you choose to call them, species, sub-species, populations or whatever. It is common for populations to diverge in isolation and to evolve behavior that is itself an isolating mechanism to reproduction. For example, one fish population that chooses to spawn in crevices while the other evolved to spawn over substrate. The populations may even evolve body parts that facilitate the new behavior. In that example, the new crevice spawners could develop, over many generations, longer oviducts and anal fins to insert eggs into crevices. Meanwhile the substrate spawners evolve sticky eggs with adhesive filaments to keep their eggs from getting washed away. Those in the popuation that fail to produce the sticky eggs would die off. After many generations, you have two species, or sub-species, or what you may wish to call them - but they are different, and the differences are the result of evolution.

If you don't know how something works, then learn how it works. Don't tell the person who does know that his indisputable knowledge is a guess. If you don't know how your car or metal detector works, ask an engineer; don't insist that an engineer guesses.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Ok then, I'll take you up on your promise:

The evidence is: No treasures recovered, despite SERIOUS hardcore digging up the landscape for 150 yrs.

To most people that is "evidence". So if I tell you "there are leprechauns under my bed", all that you'd have to do is look under the bed, observe that there are no leprechauns, and put the notion to rest. Right ? Ok, same for Oak Island .

And although I know you promised not to play "wack-a-mole", yet ... to those who WOULD dispute my "evidence". all they would merely need to say is: A little more to the right. A little more to the left. A little deeper.

Same for the leprechaun analogy. I could say "they knew you were coming, so they temporarily left". Or "they are invisible every 3rd Friday, that's why you just don't happen to see them today. But trust me, they are there. "

However, I know you promised not to dispute the evidence I would cite. So I take it we have concluded this conversation. Eh ?

So that disproves everything? That is what convinced you that it was all a hoax and there never was any treasure? If true that's flimsy Tom. Real Flimsy.

 

[jeff of pa]

please Note*: Topic "Oak Island"

not Fantasy vs. evolution.

Religious Beliefs and Discussions of must be in the Political section.

Thank You

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So that disproves everything? That is what convinced you that it was all a hoax and there never was any treasure? If true that's flimsy Tom. Real Flimsy.

A broken promise THAT fast. Eh ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... hoax ...

And who said anything about a "hoax" ? You will not find that in anything I have written about the subject. I have no doubt that all the people, for the last 150 years since the beginning, have been nothing but sincere.

Sincere people can have overactive imaginations, make mistakes, and contribute to the telephone game. All with No Malice or hoax.

 

[Megalodon]

please Note*: Topic "Oak Island"

not Fantasy vs. evolution.

Religious Beliefs and Discussions of must be in the Political section.

Thank You

OK. I apologize for my role in going off-topic.

I'll try to stick to the discussion of the evolution of Oak Island treasure theories (oops!).

I don't see enough evidence that it rises to the actual definition of scientific theory. But, like Tom_in_CA, I also don't call it a hoax because that suggests an attempt to mislead.

I wish they would consider alternate more realistic possibilities - such as maybe there was treasure there once, somebody found it and not 100' down, and didn't blab about it.

 

[Duckshot]

Natural selection is one of many ways that evolution occurs, not the only one. And it is ridiculous (tempted to say stronger words here) to state that evolution requires "genetic material spontaneously added to DNA". There is variation within every population (except for a few species, since there are always exceptions) and some members of a population will thrive more when their environment changes. Those with the genetic material that allows them to thrive will diverge in isolation (think glaciers, etc). A glacier splitting a population in two will allow the two isolated groups to diverge in isolation. The members of the population that have the ability to reproduce more in their new environments will thrive. Others will die out. When the two changed groups, call them species, or sub-species or whatever, come back together, they may or may not be capable of reproducing with each other. But even if eggs from one group can be fertilized with sperm from the other group, the two may still be new taxa - whatever you choose to call them, species, sub-species, populations or whatever. It is common for populations to diverge in isolation and to evolve behavior that is itself an isolating mechanism to reproduction. For example, one fish population that chooses to spawn in crevices while the other evolved to spawn over substrate. The populations may even evolve body parts that facilitate the new behavior. In that example, the new crevice spawners could develop, over many generations, longer oviducts and anal fins to insert eggs into crevices. Meanwhile the substrate spawners evolve sticky eggs with adhesive filaments to keep their eggs from getting washed away. Those in the popuation that fail to produce the sticky eggs would die off. After many generations, you have two species, or sub-species, or what you may wish to call them - but they are different, and the differences are the result of evolution.

If you don't know how something works, then learn how it works. Don't tell the person who does know that his indisputable knowledge is a guess. If you don't know how your car or metal detector works, ask an engineer; don't insist that an engineer guesses.

If you want to beleive that a subspecies is totally different kindof animal, i then guess you are entitled to believe so.

There are these shrimp in the Atlantic and pacific that are mostly identical, though they are different species. However they both are shrimp and retain all the DNA found in shrimp. They are the same kind of animal. Neither of these shrimp are going to turn into dragonfly and the shrimp was never a clam.

 

[man_in_black]

Back to the topic of the thread... I would LOVE for these guys to find a cache of gold/relics/historical documents/whatever, but it ain't gonna happen. One of these things is the truth:

1. There WAS some kind of actual "treasure that has long ago been recovered, and (wisely) never disclosed
2. There was/is something there that will likely never be found, due to years of misinformation, plundering, and stripping the land
3. (MOST LIKELY) There is and never was a dang thing there but dirt.

Fact: there is ZERO proof/evidence of any treasure or buried horde on that island. Every single "fact" that led to the interest in this place is purely hearsay, and no physical evidence has ever been [proven] recovered. Stone slabs, wooden depth markers, carvings, gold scraps, etc. - none have ever been officially documented, all are 100% "a guy who worked with a guy heard that" or "well, the story goes...".

This is a great story, but nothing more. Along with the other posts here, I do find it entertaining that every single item found here gets identified as some kind of Templar relic. Can't wait to see them find an old 8-track case & say "well, it is known the Templars were into Sly & the Family Stone"

 

[Megalodon]

If you want to beleive that a subspecies is totally different kindof animal, i then guess you are entitled to believe so.

There are these shrimp in the Atlantic and pacific that are mostly identical, though they are different species. However they both are shrimp and retain all the DNA found in shrimp. They are the same kind of animal. Neither of these shrimp are going to turn into dragonfly and the shrimp was never a clam.

I'm going to present one last example of evolution and then I will be quiet about the subject (faint hoorays heard...) because we are violating forum rules by continuing this discussion (please see the mod's post above).

example:
A migrating flock of birds (all the same species) is blown way off course. Just before they become lost at sea, they get stranded on an island that is a very different environment to them, with different food, climate, and predators. Usually they would all die. The birds are used to feeding on seeds but the seeds on this island have harder shells to avoid dessication. But a few of the birds have slightly stronger beaks and can eat the seeds. Those birds survive and reproduce, passing along the stronger beak genes that allowed them to survive, to their offspring (or most of them). Over many generations, the birds with ever stronger beaks have greater fitness (i.e. reproductive success) and eventually reach the point at which they no longer resemble the birds that accidentally landed on the island. They are now a new species, subspecies, whatever name you wish to apply. But they were not created - they evolved to get to that point.

OK, one more. Megalodon and Duckshot, putting away their differences for their common interests in metal detecting, attempt to boat to an island, let's call it pine island, but a surprise storm blows them way off course. The boat destroyed, they land on an island inhabited only by beautiful young women who offer the hungry robinson crusoes some tofu and sprouts, delicacies prepared by recipes handed down by Knights Templar. Both treasure hunters had previously lived on a diet of garlic flavor spam and cheese curls. The tofu and sprouts diet would require acceptance of new learning and food habits and considerable open-mindedness. One said no - it was wrong, and he starved to death. The other adapted to the new diet and reproduced with the beautiful women, producing a pack of children who accepted their new diet. Is that evolution? Not exactly, but it is an example of a willingness to learn new things and the potential rewards.

Evolutionary biologists are not the agents of Satan. They may be your neighbors who pitch in when you need help. We are not anti-religion. I attended religious schools from k-8 and then all through high school. I know several other evolutionary biologists who also endured strong discipline, some of the best by the Jesuits. We have discussed if this strong discipline, hated at the time, may have led to strong discipline in thought that helped us to succeed. We had religion class every day, not just sunday school. And the nuns and franciscan brothers taught me that there was no necessary conflict between religion and evolution.

We can say no more on this subject here. My mouth is zipped. Merry Christmas.

 

[Megalodon]

jeff of pa,
I confess to violating the rules and accept any punishment for having done so.