Codes, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Well that does it eh? We all know that trees are intelligent designers. Or are we moving the goalposts again. If everything is a product of the way the universe is designed - the ultimate position you will back into when pressed in this line - then yes you cannot rule out the possibility, but in the process you have conceded every scientific theory and natural process along the way.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Good. If you stop introducing them there will be no problem. Let's look at your claims so far: Let me set out the logic of your position now:
Premise 1: "Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind."
Premise 2: "Yes," "the rings in a tree" (are) "encoded with data"
Conclusion: Trees have a conscious mindPremise 3: "No. Trees are not intelligent."This is a direct contradiction, so at least ONE of the premises MUST be false.We can evaluate the intelligence of a tree and find that it is substantially below human intelligence and has no measurable consciousness.Conclusion: The premise "Trees are not intelligent." is valid.We are also talking about a "conscious mind" so I will add:Premise: "trees do not have a mind"We can evaluate the biological organisation of a tree and find that it indeed is lacking any organ that could be classified as "a mind" by current standards.Conclusion: The premise "trees do not have a mind" is valid (and whether the "mind" is conscious or not is mute -- there is none).We can also analyse the data encoded in tree rings and find that there is, indeed, a lot of information encoded in them that relates to climate and other factors affecting the growth of trees.Conclusion: The premise "the rings in a tree" (are) "encoded with data" is valid.Taking these validated premises and arranging them as follows:Premise: "Trees are not intelligent." (validated)
Premise: "Trees do not posses a conscious mind" (validated)
Premise: the rings in a tree" (are) "encoded with data" (validated)
Conclusion: The code produced by tree rings is not produced by an intelligent or concious mind.Because the premises involved in this structure have been validated, the conclusion is validated.NOW:This leaves the remaining premise "Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind" of the ones where ONE must be invalid. It is contradicted by the validated premises\conclusions above, therefore it is invalidated by the code made by the unintelligent unconcious non-mind of the tree.The premise "Every code known to man to date is a product of a conscious mind" is falsified and is invalid.It does not matter whether there are 1 or 10 gazillion codes made by unintelligent unconcious non-minds, your premise is falsified.Because one of the founding premises of your argument has been invalidated your whole argument has been invalidated: it is logically false to base any conclusion on it.Now we can watch your dance of equivocation, "moving the goalposts" and "red herring and strawmen" comments or you can admit that the argument is falsified. Your choice.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : typo

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I find the attempted humor of your title juvenile at best. One of the forum guidelines is respect of the others. Perhaps it was a typo? No, actually you danced around this issue. As I pointed out, what you have as a logical result of your premises is a direct contradiction -- that means you can't just "explain" it, you need to either show the logical structure is invalid that generates the contradiction or accept that your premise is invalidated. If the premise is invalidated you need to change it. There is no in-between. Continuing to assert your invalid position does not make it any more valid, it just makes your argument ridiculous.Notice these statements: The DNA does not create the differences in the tree rings, plus you admit that DNA is not intelligent: By your own words the OBVIOUS conclusion is that the tree rings are encoded by an unconscious non-intelligent process, a process that combines the way trees grow (involves more than "unconscious" DNA) with the climate and seasonal (and nutritional) variations to provide information that scientists can decode to determine what the past was like at different times. There is a message (seasonal and climate changes with time), a set of symbols (the rings are more sophisticated than dots and dashes used in Morse Code), a means of transmission (preserved tree rings), and a reader (scientists). Thus tree rings are -- by YOUR definition -- an example of a code produced by an unconscious non-intelligent process. Is thus OBVIOUSLY falsified. This cannot be "explained" away -- it is falsified.You continue to waffle and equivocate on this issue. As predicted? So far all I have seen since my message is denial and "moving the goalposts" and "red herring and strawmen" comments from you. I have. They are no more logically sound than the one that has been invalidated. You have yet to "clear up" and of YOUR misunderstandings.All you have done since is repeated an invalidated argument, asserting it is still somehow valid. It isn't. Pretending otherwise does not change the reality of the situation, it just makes your position ridiculous.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.