Evolution > Creationism

Hi-5 for learning then. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. That journal you have referenced constantly refers to animals, and machines as being "designed", and you really expect me to say that this isn't some weird concoction of ID dressed up as science? Don't know why you'd think that's disturbing either. It is entirely irrelevant to the point that this journal you have referenced is in fact ID. Bejan could have claimed in that video that he doesn't believe the Noachian flood happened and that journal Con referenced would still be this weird ID pseudoscience. Also, no you're not addressing the laws of thermodynamics. Addressing implies actually talking about the laws; rather than simply mentioning them. You haven't talked about Zeroth's law and its relation to the thermal equilibrium of three systems, the first law and the consequences of said law (matter can't be created or destroyed), the second law discusses entropy (with entropy being unusable energy), or the third law which discusses heat transfer between systems. There's no philosophy being discussed here; the only issue of contention here is your use of an atrocious which seems to be arguing for ID. So I'd appreciate you not trying to turn this into a debate on philosophy; we are not talking about philosophical issues. It's a pity that same excitement isn't applicable to me then. I see where you tried to go with this argument; that design in physics didn't exist before 1996 and therefore my claim that this nonsense is just another rehash of ID is therefore rendered void as the notion of design wasn't even around. But unfortunately, you made a fatal flaw here. Just because one pseudoscience is kicked from the kerb in on field, that does not mean that people won't try and find a way to try and re-invigorate it in another field. "Of Pandas and People" was most certainly published before 1996; I think it was published in 1989, and that textbook most certainly covered the "theory" of ID and subsequently "design" in nature. You challenge me hey? Funny that. I wasn't aware that I was arguing for your stance of biology as physics. You brought up a journal which was written atrociously and you brought up a journal which has no citations whatsoever. It is not my job to find adequate sources to back up your arguments mate. As I have pointed out to you, this journal seems to be a train-wreck of ID, evolution and physics, and the journal was too basic; almost to the point of being almost being insultingly basic. I even gave you quotes where this journal goes way over the deep end and delves straight into the realms of ID. May I ask where are your rebuttals to those quotes I took verbatim from that journal you mentioned? Also, you're conflating patterns with design, a pretty big no, no since a design infers that there was something to make the design; a designer. Patterns can occur naturally, so there's that. Truthfully, I actually like Con as his arguments are interesting, even though his source is atrocious. If this were a different debate, I'm pretty sure we'd agree with each other for the most part, but on this issue, I'm afraid I don't see competent enough evidence from Con in order to sway me that this journal he has referenced is at all credible ontop of the issue that it is not in fact some weird concoction of ID mixed with physics and biology.