Unanswered questions

[Drich]

Why did it need to create the Sun, then, if this protolight managed to do its job perfectly well on its own?

I gave two options it funny how you ignored the first one completely.

On Day one God creates light. Light or rather visiable light is possiable with out the sun. why not dispute this stimmy.

---

So all the plants created on that day had no use for the sun? God used Hydroponics?

see above

---

Did you know that certain plants and certain coral grow better under certain blends of artifical light than they do in the sun? How is that possiable if they all 'evolved' with the sun as their only source of light?

You should just leave evolution alone, Drich.

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

[Bad Writer]

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.

[Cyberman]

Still waiting for a response to my earlier question, hilarious in light of the thread title, and add this one to the pile:

Did you know that certain plants and certain coral grow better under certain blends of artifical light than they do in the sun? How is that possiable if they all 'evolved' with the sun as their only source of light?

Did you know that carbon monoxide, lethal to humans, binds better to haemoglobin than does oxygen which of course is vital to aerobic life? Why should that be possible if we are the special creations of a god?

[Drich]

You should just leave evolution alone, Drich.

Apparently he has. He seems to know nothing about it.

I know if the sun was the only source of energy that allows for photosynthesis for all naturally occouring plant life on earth, then it stands to reason that all life dependant on this process will taylor itself to estrapolate as much nourshiment from the the avaiable sunlight as possiable. (IF the theory of evolution is correct) However As some plant life stand, it turns out that different combinations of uv exposure will have a greater growth potential on these plants and even coral than natural sunlight.
Which demonstrates that these plants and even animals grow more agressivly in these altered or artificaly enhanced sun light conditions. which would further indicate that these plants/animals were not orginally designed for sun light, Or these plants and animals are not indiginous to this planet's sun. (which ever you perfer, if your still insistant on the model of evolution as it currently stands.)

Not being able to process the current sun light at full capasity is like saying that some horses and cows have never developed the flat moller type teeth they all currently share for grazing. That some only have sharp teeth like a dog or lion, but still feed on grass or grains. again if the animal did not evolve the ablity to process it's primary food source then one can extrapolate that it has either been designed to present this way or that, that particular animal is not indiginous to nor or well suited to life on this planet.

---

Still waiting for a response to my earlier question, hilarious in light of the thread title, and add this one to the pile:

Did you know that certain plants and certain coral grow better under certain blends of artifical light than they do in the sun? How is that possiable if they all 'evolved' with the sun as their only source of light?

Did you know that carbon monoxide, lethal to humans, binds better to haemoglobin than does oxygen which of course is vital to aerobic life? Why should that be possible if we are the special creations of a god?

sorry misread..

Carbon Monoxcide contains Oxygen. If Oxygen's adhearance to haemoglobin is 10, and Carbon's ablity to attach itself to Haemoglobin is 1.5 the total ablity of a CO molicule to attach itself to Haemoglobin is 1.5 greater than Oxygen's ablity to attach itself to Haemoglobin on it's own. Carbon monocide is a combination of two seperate elements that share the properties of each indivisual element. While oxygen is a single element working on it's own.

Where does your arguement fail?

It fails because you presuppose that the world was built so that it may completely and perfectly support us. when in fact that was the purpose of the garden. Once we left the garden we were taken out of a friendly enviroment and made to survive in this one. We are not built to last here. This life is not our reward.

[Faith No More]

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.

[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.

[Faith No More]

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.

[Bad Writer]

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,

[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.

[Minimalist]

Drippy, what you do not understand about evolution could fill entire libraries.