Unanswered questions

[Drich]

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?

Again, you're bastardizing evolution. Things don't evolve to maximize anything. They evolve to survive and pass on their genes. Plants evolved to use the enrergy from the sun to survive and reproduce, not to use the sun to maximum efficiency and no other source. We are able to create artificial sources of light that allow plants to receive more energy than they would get from the sun. That in no way implies a designer, nor does it disprove evolution.

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.

No, the answer is that you are completely mistaken and are speaking about things you don't understand.

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.

This is just nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionar..._of_plants

I seldom speak on something I have not researched. In the above artical (I can post links to others that support it if you like) you will see that plants have evolved and become far more complex than the were orginally. Why? to MAXIMIZE and take full Advantage of the solar energy produced by the sun and to increase photosynthisis. (That is why not all plants resemble mossy carpets, and have since grown stems, trunkks and leaves.

Why does your intial rebuttal/theory fail? Because even if a plant reacts better to higher or certain levels of UV exposure, It would be endanger of getting to what amounts to be a sun burn. When the photoreactive cells are over exposed they do indeed burn up. For instance take a plant that has been adapted for low to no sun light, and put it into direct sunlight. Now depending on the plant and the condition in which it orginally came from that plant could do really well in full sunlight for a time, but at some point it's photo reactive cells reach a saturation point, at which time if the plant remains in direct sunlight it will get that sun burn i was talking about.

Some plants do better in almost twice the current intensity of sunlight than we currently get. Not just for a little while, but these plant can live extended lifecycles in this 2x sunlight. Again how is that possiable. How can a plant so over develop it photo reactive cells to the point where they can process twice the energy as everything else on the planet, but have Never been in a place, time or condition to have naturally (Bazillions of years appearently) these cells that will Never be used?

Now I know your an atheist and pride yourself on being a naturally endowed/born with all the ins and outs of evolution, but before you speak do your reasearch and then forumilate a theory. It's painfully obvious your trying to bluff your way to a dismissal of everything I have said. Most of the time i let crap like that go, but for some reason today is different. I am calling all of you to task, and will hold you to the same standards you pretend to hold everything you know, and by default examine Christianity. Well today is my day to do the same. Lets see how well you fair.

You want to say plants did not maximize themselves to process the suns energy, then i need reference material that says my material is incorrect.

I dont care what your beliefs are show me 'proof.'

---

I'll go read that thread of yours (thanks for pointing it out) but I still want you to explain, given what we have learned about the cosmos, how the earth could be created before the sun,

In short the majority of the creation account was based on a garden perspective.

Meaning if you were stood in the middle of the garden this is what you would have seen and when you would have seen it.