Quote Originally Posted by Itinerant Lurker View Post
I've stated multiple times that it doesn't speak to the age of the sun, but instead to the age of sunlight which, coincidentally, obliterates Eddy's claims. I'm not sure how you keep missing this.
What we keep missing from you after 5 consecutive posts is your evidence that our sun is 4.5 billion years old. All you have done is erect a YEC straw man and then rattle on about the age of sunlight. I simply want to see if you have evidence the sun is 4.5 billion years old as you suggest.

If you think you've got a better solution to what process powers stars other than nuclear fusion I'm all ears. So are pretty much all reputable cosmologists so please, feel free to elaborate. If you have a better explanation you could probably write a book and make quite a good living for yourself.
Oh, I think we have a fusion-powered sun alright - I only pointed out that the historical data and other evidence is still not scientifically conclusive as to how the sun heats itself.

Yay, a quote from one guy in 1967. And? Sorry, that's just not how we actually define the theory of evolution.
LOL - you do know who Dobzhansky was and what the “modern evolutionary synthesis” is – right? His notion that evolution comprises all stages of development in the universe is still alive and well.