Is ANYONE else getting TIREd of

[Tom_in_CA]

.... They did find 2 triangle rocks....

Ok , and ...... so ? Triangle shapes (even if seemingly uncanny ) can exist anywhere. Heck, in my backyard, I can no doubt find "2 triangle rocks" (and circles, and rectangles, etc...). If you lie on your back and stare at the passing clouds long enough : You can eventually see a bunny shape, a smile face, etc...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Truth]

I agree, that this show, tugs at my treasure hunter's heart...!
I want them to find this huge treasure, but the Templar's ties to it,
is hard to believe some of the stuff they find on this show!
The cost of a Minelab is minuscule, compared to the other digging and recovery
methods they been using. Gary the detectorist, seems to find all the relics and coins...!
And, they are using all these hi-tech tools, which I enjoy seeing being used.

Lol it funny you mention that when I’m watching it I keep telling my wife the detectorist is finding everything!! WE ARE THE BEST!!!!!

Meanwhile she’s wishing it would end because she’s trying to read her book. Lol

I watch it tongue-and-check. I take my detecting a lot more serious then the show, but I do like to watch it. As a matter of fact I have the last one taped I’m gonna watch it now.

 

[Gaspipe]

Please see my thread in the Treasure Legends section......you'll see how I feel.

 

[against the wind]

I have never seen one episode of the walking dead either. I've seen the original movie that was made back in the 50's! I have also enjoyed documentaries on the pit on Oak island, years ago.

I'm CHEAP! I won't pay to watch TV. They should pay us to watch the crap they produce nowdays. Especially if there are commercials!

Sorry for the hijack, back to the thread...

Night of the Living Dead,, 1968.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Your religion requires tremendous leaps of Faith. Creator-Deniers beleive that Man evolved over billions of years from lifeless scum found in the bottom of a pond. Thats a lot more faith than I got.

And yet, creationists believe that an omnipotent power created all of this, and then decided to build every chordate on the same damned boring bilateral symmetrical framework. It certainly could be possible that our creator was utterly lacking in creativity and imagination, or it could also possibly be that all of those chordates came from the same source, and that damned boring bilateral symmetrical framework is actually very functional and the sort of thing that evolutionary pressure would encourage, thus leaving various different evolutionary paths remarkably similar in important ways...which they are.

There should be no reason why an intelligent creator would reuse 99% of a chimpanzee's or bonobo's DNA to make mine, so why is our DNA ~99% identical? It could be because our intelligent creator was uncommonly intelligent and chose to reuse earlier work with later creations, and that's an idea that I certainly can't debunk. But it's also at least possible that we have a common ancestor. One of these options does a much better job of explaining why you have a tailbone than the other one does. If you were tasked with designing humans and chimpanzees, and you decided that humans would not need tails, would you simply delete the tail entirely? Or would you leave a little nubbin at the end of their spinal cord that served no purpose other than to possibly cause problems?

Just something to think about.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....or it could also possibly be that all of those chordates came from the same source, .....

Depends on how you think about it. The commonality can mean a same-designer. One would expect that from a personal-being. Eg.: Someone's music writing style can be said to be the "same" (eg.: you can recognize the Beatles, the beach boys, elton john, etc... ) as distinct "designers". Ie.: so why WOULDN'T there be "common tail-bones" blah blah if the designer were "in common" ?

So in the same way you see it as "random", someone else could infer "design".

 

[RustyGold]

The Laginas would all be richer than they already are if they had put all that money, energy and time into mining real gold in Alaska, California and Nevada.

 

[Worm-Slicer]

So are we talking about the evolution of the Laginas from lizards now? This conversation is all over the place. Hey...and I just realized something. This actually proves evolution how this thread started out and it has evolved into evolution (try saying that ten times fast.)

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Me thinks you've got this bass-ackwards . It's not up to the skeptics to disprove and dispute the claims. It's up to the believers to PROVE the claims. Me thinks you've got the burden of proof reversed wrong.

The trouble with trying to have a skeptic shoot down all the various supposed proofs, is that this merely becomes a game of wackamo. I saw one skeptic go into trying to shoot down one of the "salacious details", which had to do with fiber found at such & such depth. The debate devolved into how the fiber got there , whether or not it was indigenous to Europe or Africa. How far it could drift on ocean currents. How bouyant it was, so as to debate whether or not it could float long distance. Blah blah. Pages and pages of debate on coconut fiber !

So too would it be for ANY detail a skeptic tried to dismiss : The faithful will find ANY SHRED of remote possibility, for how something seemingly insane *might* be possible. And the moment they do that , PRESTO: The entire story is unassailable, right ?

(For the sake of argument, I am NOT going into specifics on what I believe and don't so I will use the general "I believe".)

You never read my posts LOL. Regardless of whatever, I believe. So I want a skeptic to provide hard proof for me not to believe. Simple right?

I mean you telling me not to believe is just not very convincing is it?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....

I mean you telling me not to believe is just not very convincing is it?

There has been AMPLE "evidence" floated, to show that no treasure is on Oak Island. But it will all just be dismissed in the game of "wack-A-mole" that the faithful will play.

The mere fact of a million dry/empty holes, should be evidence enough . Right ? But nnneeeooohhh, that only means: A little more to the right. A little more to the left. A little deeper, etc... So do you see that no amount of "proof" that any skeptic gives, will ever be sufficient ? The goal posts will perpetually forever be moved.

And as for the original cute story: That can all be chalked up to over-active imaginations and telephone game gone awry. If you want real-life examples of how that can explain it, I would be happy to deliver. But alas, I fear the Wack-A-mole game would shortly ensue

 

[b3y0nd3r]

There has been AMPLE "evidence" floated, to show that no treasure is on Oak Island. But it will all just be dismissed in the game of "wack-A-mole" that the faithful will play.

The mere fact of a million dry/empty holes, should be evidence enough . Right ? But nnneeeooohhh, that only means: A little more to the right. A little more to the left. A little deeper, etc... So do you see that no amount of "proof" that any skeptic gives, will ever be sufficient ? The goal posts will perpetually forever be moved.

And as for the original cute story: That can all be chalked up to over-active imaginations and telephone game gone awry. If you want real-life examples of how that can explain it, I would be happy to deliver. But alas, I fear the Wack-A-mole game would shortly ensue

I promise NOT to dispute your hard verifiable evidence so we will avoid the whack-a-mole.

So I bolded two statements. The first one, do you have pictures YOU took of the holes or are you talking about what you saw on TV?

The second one, do you have ANY studies to back up this claim?

I am not looking for stories of real life examples(like your famous road work story). I am looking for cataloged evidence, hard scientific proof.

No one here has actually gone to the island to disprove the claims made. Sure anyone can speculate and say, "no one would dig that deep", "there was never a pit to begin with", or, "there's no proof of any treasure". These are just statements with NO proof to back them up. Surely with over 200 years of research there must be some links on the web to back up skeptics claims. No one here can take the time to do the skeptical foot work?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

There is no treasure at Oak Island because there is no Oak Island. I have not seen it in person so I deny it exists.

In fact, you may just be someone I imagine exists at the other end of an electronic connection.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Oak Island has been tossed more times than Paris Hilton.

Oak Island -1866

Oak Island - 1893

Oak Island - 1931

Oak Island - 1965

 

[SusanMN]

I think it has been better these last two seasons than it was early on, where episode after episode they found nothing at all. Waiting on the big swamp area to be drained, bet it will be next season before they show us anything.

 

[Red James Cash]

They'll show you something alright Scenes for the next 5 seasons of nothing,then another season or recaps of the last season of nothing

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I am looking for cataloged evidence, hard scientific proof. ...

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....

 

[UnderMiner]

I stopped watching History channel once they stopped promoting history and started promoting pseudo-science. Makes you wonder if there is an agenda to deliberately dumb-down the masses nowadays.

 

[Red James Cash]

Give the man a cigar.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Depends on how you think about it. The commonality can mean a same-designer. One would expect that from a personal-being. Eg.: Someone's music writing style can be said to be the "same" (eg.: you can recognize the Beatles, the beach boys, elton john, etc... ) as distinct "designers". Ie.: so why WOULDN'T there be "common tail-bones" blah blah if the designer were "in common" ?

So in the same way you see it as "random", someone else could infer "design".

But I don't see it as being random at all. There are easily observable patterns in life today. There are less easily observable patterns in the fossil record of life. We can connect the dots while admitting that not all of the dots have been found.

If a theory describes life evolving toward more efficient designs over a long period of time, I'd argue that diverging branches of life sharing common features that are effective would be proof. Bilateral symmetry and endoskeletons seem to be the way to go once an animal is over a certain size. It doesn't mean that it's smart, but it does imply that it works, and it's been working for a long time.

I can't speak for an intelligent designer but if I were tasked with designing a multitude of animals, I'd be inclined to recycle the features that worked well while discarding other features that added nothing to the effectiveness of the design. The human tailbone is completely useless. It's a waste of calcium and mass. I could apply that same mass of bone somewhere else where it would be more useful, or I could delete it entirely to save a little weight. I would not include it just because I was the "tailbone guy." There are other ways to put your name on a design without compromising it.

If I were omnipotent, I'd know where things were going and I'd plan ahead for that. I'd know that humans would eventually be consuming large amounts of refined carbohydrates and I'd work out their livers a bit better so that they all didn't wind up as fat diabetics from that diet...that is, if I truly cared about them. Or else I'd remove refined carbohydrates from the equation entirely and not make it an option. That is, if I cared about the well being of the things under my care, which is why my cats eat that fancy grain free cat food. I know what they should be eating and I have control over their food source, so I make sure that they eat what they should be eating, and not corn.

There has been AMPLE "evidence" floated, to show that no treasure is on Oak Island. But it will all just be dismissed in the game of "wack-A-mole" that the faithful will play.

Indeed. There is a way of thinking that involves simply throwing circumstantial evidence at the problem. It's difficult to argue against. When a person provides me with ten pieces of circumstantial evidence, my initial impulse is to work my way through them, debunking them one by one. This is exactly the wrong way to do it. By the time that I've addressed #10, we're back to #1 again. I'd argue that a better way to address this method of debate is to trim off the fat, and simply to ask, "Give me your best single piece of evidence arguing that this is the case." (If you want to be kind, extend this to two or three.) The logic here is that if you have some really compelling evidence of something, you won't need much of it to change my mind, so lead off with your winning card and make me a believer or not.

I should really take my own advice, but I've been trained and conditioned to go after the details, which is how I've ended up in multiyear debates here.

Oak Island has been tossed more times than Paris Hilton.

This made me chuckle.

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 ?

As Tom has said, it's not that skeptics are lazy or don't have solid arguments, but rather it's that it's very difficult to prove a negative.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If I were omnipotent, I'd know where things were going and I'd plan ahead for that......that is, if I truly cared about them..... .

Dave, glad we agree about Oak Island psychology

As for the above, why stop there ? Why do we humans even experience pain at all ? Why any imperfection or tragedy, right ? After all, you, as an imperfect human being, would do everything in your power to keep your child from any and all hardship, pain, etc.... right ? So how-much-more-so wouldn't an omnipotent being do so , eh ? You don't want to see the death of a loved one, right ? So how-much-more-so wouldn't an omnipotent being do so, eh ?

This is the age-old debate of "the problem of evil". And has been discarded by atheists as a line of debate. If you care to look it up (I will not take up forum space), you will see that it unravels, once taken to some logical conclusions.