Evolution > Creationism

I'll accept that; small typo on my end. You seem to be under the assumption that just because something is not called ID, that does not mean it is ID. It does not matter if ID is not mentioned specifically, that is what this journal is going for, is it not? If you really don't think that this journal is arguing for ID, may I ask you to explain the below quotes? "Figure 2. Closed system in steady state (heat flows in and out). (a) Without flow organization (design); (b) With flow organization; (c) Every moving body, animate or inanimate, functions as an engine that dissipates its power entirely into a brake during movement. The natural tendency of evolving design is the same as the tendency toward more power (the engine design, animal or machine), and toward more dissipation (mixing the moved with the ambient).45" How about another quote? "The physical effect of evolving design is more movement and greater access for all movers. This is what all the "demons" achieve, including you and I. This is the complete design of all animate or inanimate flow systems, from water flowing in river basins, to animal locomotion and urban traffic, and atmospheric and oceanic circulation." I mean, what? The above quote can be found under the heading, "The time arrow: Evolutionary design" and it is the last paragraph. This journal is the weirdest thing I've ever read; it's like someone decided to put ID, physics and evolution in the same bed and see what happens when they're mated together. It's just Weird. Not to mention that the journal seems to be written in such a basic manner. I would like to refer you a few journals I've read in regards to the theory of evolution: 1)"An exceptional Devonian fish from Australia sheds light on tetrapod origins" (http://www.nature.com...) " - 88 citations 2)"Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" - 468 citations (http://www.pnas.org...) 3)"Dewclaws in wolves as evidence of admixed ancestry with dogs" - 30 citations (http://www.nrcresearchpress.com...) Important note: I've given you 3 journals; 2 of which you would need to buy yourself if you want to peruse all of said journal (which I don't recommend buying). Point (2) however, is free to view the entire journal. That's not a fair assertion at all Con. I came to the conclusion that this journal is ID pretending to not be ID is because I read your source last night. This conclusion is fortified by the quotes from this journal I gave at the start of this rebuttal. Time, after time after time, your source goes on about design this, design that. I'm unsure of how you think that this is not ID, because this journal wallops you over the head with the concept of "design" constantly. As for his statement in video, it really does not matter. He authored this journal, and the concept of design is brought up ad-nauseum in it. Whether or not he answered one question differently (or even similarly for that matter) to other to how other creationists would answer it, is entirely irrelevant. We could talk about the morphological evidence for the phylogeny of cetacea [1]. Refer to pp 59, Fig. 17 for an example of monophyletic group; see pg. 29 for methods. Another avenue of evidence we could talk about is avida simulation via the use of Avida-Ed, in order to simulate avidians in a specific environment, to see evolutionary progress in these artificial forms of life evolve when certain parameters are put in place [2] This journal goes over the history of these simulations (starting with Core World in the 90's), and ends off with a discussion of 30 trials and how some of these simulations I could go on, but I really don't get what the point would be for that; it wouldn't be beneficial for either of us. You obviously accept evolution; you just have some weird conception of evolution as physics (I made sure I typed that correctly this time), because of some random journal which has no citations whatsoever, is poorly written and seems to be some sort of weird mutation of ID, biology and physics. I thank Con for their time in this debate and look forward to future responses from Con. Even though my eyebrows are raised because Con sourced this journal, I'm actually enjoying myself. Sources: [1] http://link.springer.com... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...