Originally Posted by Peace Warrior
(btw- The photo thing didn't escape me. At least you have a sense of humor.
Neither you nor I were around to witness the creation of the Sun. It may very well be a star, or it may be totally different from other stars in the universe, but one thing is for sure, you are utilizing what you believe to have occurred (i.e., theory)
coupled with a light smattering of historical science, which is no where even close to an actual, empirically scientific explanation for the "birth" of stars as promoted by the Big Bang, Oscillating Universe, and or any of the Stellar evolution theories.
let me bring you up to speed
empirical - adjective - \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\
1: originating in or based on observation or experience
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
So you are not sure if the sun is a star now?
Is there any empirical evidence you have a functional brain inside your skull? Exactly how do you come to that conclusion? You have a bible verse to back that up, since actual evidence seems to not be your strong suit.... While we're at it, have a cat scan or mri of your head?
And regarding radiometric dating, potassium argon dating relies on half lives of over a billion years. Utterly useless for timeframes around 6000 to 13000 years, so that pretty much puts your young earth creation theory into the trash bin of history, using actual evidence and real physical phenomenon. If everything were 13000 years old or less, everything would appear the same age using potassium argon dating, i.e. essentially zero. Which is demonstrably not the case.
Of course, you'll pretend that evidence doesn't exist.