Unanswered questions

[Esquilax]

tonus seems to think differently. maybe you two figure out who is right, and present one. Otherwise people might start to think I have divided the oppsitions argument.

First of all, I'm really not responsible for what tonus does or doesn't think, because he and I are different people. Secondly, I'm not exactly sure that anything he's said disagrees with my position here. Could you quote it for me?

I'm sure he could clear it up himself if he drops back in, too.

Now it's my turn to ask have you been reading ANY of my threads?!?!

Better than you have been, apparently. Because your initial post, the one I was responding to here, and the question you asked, was this:

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?

Regardless of what your actual objection was, this was what you posted as support for it. You asked this question, and I responded; more than that, I also pointed out that poking holes in evolution doesn't give your position any more credibility, and that this isn't a legitimate hole anyway.

Because I have said over and over and over My argument states that the ablity to absorb more energy than the sun puts out is not a mutation!!! It is or rather it was the starting point of all plant life that existed at the time of creation!!!! That they were originally created to absorb this 'pure' or at least purer from of light that existed before the sun. That Plants since then have De-evolved and mutated to MAXIMIZE their ablity to process the current suns energy in varing degrees.

Ooh, positive claim. Evidence, please. I mean, I've already told you how your objection to the evolutionary answer makes no sense, so you're going to have to either provide something positive in support, or try a new negative tack... though that won't ever actually prove your claim.

Your still arguing in the other direction. which means you still do not grasp the nature of the argument. which makes all of your points and analogies invalid for what is being discussed.

I answered the question from your post, that I quoted. That was all I set out to do, and that's the position I've been arguing from this whole time; there's a very definite evolutionary explanation of this phenomena, whether you understand it or not.

And the process is demonstrable, which already gives it a leg up on your creation nonsense.