Unanswered questions

[Faith No More]

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

You just need to R/E/A/D(something besides the bible) and you will have your answer.

In all seriousness, I am giving my son a bath right now, and i will respond to you with sources and such later.

[Tonus]

Everyone is bound by OT law, unless they find a righteousness/morality that exceeds the righteousness/morality one obtains by adhearing to the Law.

Meaning once you accept Christ's attonement then you are no longer bound to the Law to define your righteousness/Morality. In otherwords once you accept attonement the Law is no longer the standard in which you will be judged Righteous/moral before God.

Errr... so is everyone bound by the OT law, or not? You seem to be saying that everyone is until they accept the sacrifice of Christ, at which point they are not. Is that what you mean to say?

[Bad Writer]

Drich, so you're admitting that the creation account was written from a false perspective. How can you even take stock in it then?

If that account is wrong, by your admission, then what about the ark story which is a technical and logistical nightmare (not to mention physically impossible) or the Israelis' sojourn in the wilderness, just to name a couple? Do you take stock in those too, or are they the exceptions to intellectual honesty?

[Minimalist]

Meaning once you accept Christ's attonement

And the moment you provide evidence of it...real evidence, not your fucking bible, I'll think about accepting it.

In the meantime, it is a slightly less instructive story than "The Tortoise and the Hare."

[Drich]

Everyone is bound by OT law, unless they find a righteousness/morality that exceeds the righteousness/morality one obtains by adhearing to the Law.

Meaning once you accept Christ's attonement then you are no longer bound to the Law to define your righteousness/Morality. In otherwords once you accept attonement the Law is no longer the standard in which you will be judged Righteous/moral before God.

Errr... so is everyone bound by the OT law, or not? You seem to be saying that everyone is until they accept the sacrifice of Christ, at which point they are not. Is that what you mean to say?

In essence yes. The law serves one purpose now. That is to identify sin for the purpose of repentance. Once one repents of sin, righteousness/'morality' is no longer determined by how you up hold the law.

---

Drich, so you're admitting that the creation account was written from a false perspective. How can you even take stock in it then?

just because theOT was not written how you originally believed it to be written does not mean it was written from a false perspective. Believe it or not you are not the standard in which God revolves Himself around. If your understanding of the Old Testament has failed you, then that does not mean the OT itself is in error. It simply means someone who has not spent anytime studying it failed to completely understand it.

If that account is wrong, by your admission, then what about the ark story which is a technical and logistical nightmare (not to mention physically impossible) or the Israelis' sojourn in the wilderness, just to name a couple? Do you take stock in those too, or are they the exceptions to intellectual honesty?

i've personally done the ark to death, but if you want to give it ago start another thread.

[Faith No More]

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.

You are falsely equivocating your claims of energy maximization, and your link had nothing to do with the original claim, which was that plants should have evolved to get maximum energy from the sun but no other sources. Now, you are merely claiming that plants will evolve to increase energy usage, something I never would have denied. I am denying your claim that a plant getting more energy from an artificial source disproves evolution, as evolution is adapting for survivability, not maximization of traits.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ough.shtml

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.

This doesn't seem to be relevant to your claim. Sure, plants have a particular saturation point, which will vary from species to species. If a certain plant is surviving in higher levels of light, clearly they haven't reached the saturation point. If they had reached the saturation point, they wouldn't survive in artificial light, which is central to your claim.

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?

I'm going to need proof of these claims. Not only do you carry the burden of proof here, I need to know what species can do this to this and under what conditions.

But let's discuss this anyway.

Photosynthesis isn't simply dependent upon ability to absorb light. It also depends on other factors such CO2 levels and the availability of water for cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

This means that a plant could evolve to absorb a certain amount of light, but if these other resources dwindled, it would then have to adapt to that, which doesn't necessarily entail losing the ability absorb the same amount of light it had previously evolved to absorb. A plant could then end up with the ability to absorb more light than it could practically photosynthesize.

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.

It has nothing to do with atheism, nor pride. It has to do with seeing someone speak about something that betrays even the simplest understanding of its most fundamental concepts. Remember, you don't have to bluff if you are certain your opponent is full of shit.

[Faith No More]

Also, Drich, I must also mention that evolutionary traits often have dual prupose, so for your claim to be true you must demonstrate that the chlorophyll that absorbs light cannot have another use. Otherwise, another need for survival could have caused a plant to devlop more chlorophyll than is necessary to absorb the energy of the sun. For a hypothetical example, cholorphyll is what gives plants its green color, so there may have been an evolutionary advantage to fully devolp that trait, which would lead a plant to have the ability to process more energy than the sun gives off. So, your next hurdle for your claim that evolution is disproven by plants being able to absorb more energy from artificial light is to prove that chlorophyll has one purpose and one purpose only.

[Bad Writer]

This whole discussion about plants is moot because the sun is demonstrably older than the earth anyway.

[Esquilax]

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?

Because being able to overperform is leagues better than having to deal with underperformance?

Hell, more than that, evolution doesn't have a mind or anything, it's not specifically searching to maximize performance based upon the current environment. Traits that do that will definitely be inherited assuming nothing big happens, but the actual process is far, far messier than your gross oversimplification of it.

These plants, for one, may have come by a photosynthetic mutation that allows them to absorb more sunlight than they need to, but because that mutation doesn't do any outright harm, it's allowed to persist despite serving no function. Since evolution has no framework that it's working within, the things it produces might seem nonsensical to you, but so long as there isn't a distinct disadvantage to them, there's no reason for them to stop existing. It's the same reason we have appendixes, or facial hair, on any number of useless traits; they aren't killing us, so there's no pressure on them to be bred out.

Also, versatility isn't a bad thing; sure these plants aren't using that extra photosensitivity now, but they have a distinct advantage in situations where sunlight is elevated. For all we know, in a couple million years time those plants might be the only ones still extant because they were the ones that could cope with some weird solar disaster.

[Drich]

You are falsely equivocating your claims of energy maximization, and your link had nothing to do with the original claim, which was that plants should have evolved to get maximum energy from the sun but no other sources. Now, you are merely claiming that plants will evolve to increase energy usage, something I never would have denied. I am denying your claim that a plant getting more energy from an artificial source disproves evolution, as evolution is adapting for survivability, not maximization of traits.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ough.shtml

Your quotation is working against you. Do you not understand the arguement? The link tells us that natural selection may not produce a “perfectly-engineered” trait.

Yet we have them. If natural selection will not produce 'x' and we have 'x' then explain for 'x'.

Your actually supporting my arguement that says, these plants did not 'evolve' here or they were "perfectly engeneered" to process a higher yield sun/source of uv light. For if Natural selection can not solve for 'X' then another explaination is needed to explain 'x'.

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.

This doesn't seem to be relevant to your claim.

If you took the time to encorperate or at least figure out how my above quote supports my orginal arguement, maybe you would not have spent so much time supporting my side of the arguement.

Sure, plants have a particular saturation point, which will vary from species to species. If a certain plant is surviving in higher levels of light, clearly they haven't reached the saturation point. If they had reached the saturation point, they wouldn't survive in artificial light, which is central to your claim.

I see the hamster turning in it's wheel, but it stopped short.

So, if they did not reach the saturation point with the only naturally occouring source avaiable to them to 'evolve' around then where did the 'learn' to process so much more light than what is avaiable?

If the plants maximize itself or just learn to survive in it's enviorment then the conditions of the enviorment 'cap' the organism ablity to develop. That is supposed why man evolved past the point of monkies. their enviorment 'caped' their evolution as their needs kept them small and light suited for trees, while our enviorment supposedly allowed for a more robust primate that had to learn to use tools, hunt, gather, defend himself from everything.

To have a plant with the ablity to process so much more uv light than what the enviroment allows for is counter what natural selection allows for.

I'm going to need proof of these claims. Not only do you carry the burden of proof here, I need to know what species can do this to this and under what conditions.

Your asking the wrong question. You should first look at light production. the different kinds of light, the wave lengths it produces and intensity at a given wattage in a specific media. Then cross that with a given region for the anual solar out put on that same specturm of light from the artifical light source. Once you have those numbers then cross that with a hydroponic growers table for any given crops, then do the math yourself.

This is far too complex for me to try and explain to you when you do not reall care to learn any of this.

But let's discuss this anyway.

Photosynthesis isn't simply dependent upon ability to absorb light. It also depends on other factors such CO2 levels and the availability of water for cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

This means that a plant could evolve to absorb a certain amount of light, but if these other resources dwindled, it would then have to adapt to that, which doesn't necessarily entail losing the ability absorb the same amount of light it had previously evolved to absorb. A plant could then end up with the ability to absorb more light than it could practically photosynthesize.

preaching to the choir

It has nothing to do with atheism, nor pride. It has to do with seeing someone speak about something that betrays even the simplest understanding of its most fundamental concepts. Remember, you don't have to bluff if you are certain your opponent is full of shit.

I'm not the one who is completely lost in this conversation