Ok, if I'm misunderstanding ID, then tell me what it is please. Is or is not the basic principal that complex organisms like say a cell required an 'intelligence' behind it in order for it to exist? Does it or does it not give as examples things like a watch or writings on clay tablets as examples to compare by saying one surmises that the watch or text were created by an intelligent being, so how can we think that a cell or any other complex biological organism is not the same? If I am correct, what or who is that intelligence?

Would the person teaching ID theorize an alien life form from another planet? No, silly answer, other planets didn't exist because ID also encompasses the universe as a complex 'thing' that would require intelligence to exist, so other planets didn't exist either.

Abiogenesis is the study of how life started, not evolution and I've linked an article describing an experiment that has been repeated where the components necessary for life have been created from inorganic compounds in the lab. More experimentation is of course necessary and more work to be done, of course.

CO2 is also a byproduct of trees. If we have less trees because of deforestation, wouldn't we have less CO2? The burning of fossil fuels has risen as has the CO2 level, again both in measurable ways. I would tend to trust independent scientists that ones who were commisioned by the fossil fuel companies, just a quirk of mine.

Real science and research will hopefully always continue. There is also the question of pace. More funding and interest, the faster the progress.

FuzzNJ wrote:

You've made some very good points, and I believe a logical debate can stem from this type of discussion.
Unfortunately, as you have admitted previously, you don't want to talk about this. You claim that the discussion itself is pure denial.
I suggest otherwise.

tailgater wrote:

Well, that's a dishonest representation of my position as I've never said, nor suggested it.

I have said, several times though, that discussing ID in a science classroom is not the appropriate venue.

FuzzNJ wrote:

First of all, the breadth of my allegation is wider than just ID.
Secondly, how can you possibly claim that you've never said nor suggested that conservatives are in denial simply by opposing your stance on certain issues, when subject of this very thread is exactly that??

I may be a closed minded religious nut job who hates that science magic, but I do believe that posting a thread is akin to "suggesting" where your position lies.

tailgater wrote:

CO2 is also a byproduct of trees. If we have less trees because of deforestation, wouldn't we have less CO2? The burning of fossil fuels has risen as has the CO2 level, again both in measurable ways. I would tend to trust independent scientists that ones who were commisioned by the fossil fuel companies, just a quirk of mine.

FuzzNJ wrote:

The ignorance of FuzzNJ is on display. Trees take in CO2 and produce oxygen. What does a "carbon credit" consist of? Usually libs will plant trees to offset their so-called carbon footprint. Wow, how can anyone take him seriously? Oh wait, no one does.

robertknyc wrote:

You are correct, my bad. I should have said methane from decomposing plant material.

FuzzNJ wrote: