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]

[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]