Unanswered questions

[Drich]

But then you have to do some special pleading to show how there was light on the earth before the sun.

Now, if take what we know of astronomy into account, how do you explain that the earth came into being before the sun?

---

Also, taking evolution into account at all is very honest and shows some intellectual maturity on your part, Drich. However, using evolution at the same time trying to rationalize the genesis creation account is kinda laughable, but good luck with that.

Did you not read my creation/evolution thread?

---

Does it up set you that i have reconsiled your theory into creationism?

No, it upsets me when you bastardize what the theory entails, as you have in the question above. Evolution being correct doesn't mean that something automatically evolves to maximize its energy usage. Many factors go into how an organism evolves, and you make rational people weep when you try to tell others what would result from evolution.

The plants evolved to use the energy from the sunlight, and we were able to create an artificial light source that acted as a better energy source. It's not a difficult thing to grasp.

again how does that work?

If all plant life knew was "X" and builds and maximizes itself around "X" then how is it now more compatiable with "Xa?" where was the 'life' exposed to "a" to develop a better reaction to it?

The answer is it was either designed for better results when exposed to "Xa" or it orginated from some place that "Xa" was naturally occouring.

If "a" is greater UV exposure then the whole global climbate change scare tatic is crap. If evolution is correct, and the plants developed and devolved here without a designer.