@KellyJay
You simply refuse to accept the scientific progress of the last TWO HUNDRED YEARS.
We KNOW our star has a limited lifespan, almost ALL stars die eventually because astronomers have VERY sophisticated telescopes now that makes the Palomar telescope where I used to live obsolete and it was the best in the world back in the day.
Now have a bunch of telescopes of all varieties, visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, X ray, cosmic ray telescopes in orbit around Earth and millions of miles away from Earth like the James Webb telescope now probing so far back in time they see a few hundred million years after the birth of the whole universe and we don't need to go into the origin of the universe argument, that has zero bearing on what we DO observe and we see category of stars in extremely large data bases where we see the birth, life and death of stars very similar to our sun and we SEE how they are born, live and die. Now you argue we cannot know ANYTHING about the stars much less their birth, life and eventual death.
The thing we see in stars just like our sun, they get born by the explosion of a previous nova, a star exploding at the end of ITS life and that junk flies through space till that junk hits a previous cloud in deep space and THAT collision sets the stage for new stars to be born. This is all proven time and time again and there is no use you arguing we can know NOTHING about the birth, life and death of stars because we in fact CAN know that kind of thing, this is not talking about the origin of the universe whether made by a god or some natural process, we are talking about millions and billions of years AFTER the universe was made, however that happened.
@sonhouse saidWe disagree on what constitutes scientific progress period, looking at what you think is true and disagreeing with you is not denying science, it is denying your inferences to the data nothing more. As I have said repeatedly you can have any date you want and assign it to your inferences to the best explanations you want. The age of the universe does not help you in any way or shape in talking about how it came into existence, age of the universe doesn't in any way or shape give you insight into the mechanisms required to start a universe that has material, and immaterial pieces in it, nor can long periods show you how time, energy, material, space, and so on began. Repeating your views on how accurate your ability is to show how old the universe is if right, only shows you how old the universe is, nothing more.
@KellyJay
You simply refuse to accept the scientific progress of the last TWO HUNDRED YEARS.
We KNOW our star has a limited lifespan, almost ALL stars die eventually because astronomers have VERY sophisticated telescopes now that makes the Palomar telescope where I used to live obsolete and it was the best in the world back in the day.
Now have a bunch of telescopes of ...[text shortened]... are talking about millions and billions of years AFTER the universe was made, however that happened.
@KellyJay saidDo you agree with the scientific explanation of gravity as detailed in the video you linked to in your OP?
We disagree on what constitutes scientific progress period, looking at what you think is true and disagreeing with you is not denying science, it is denying your inferences to the data nothing more. As I have said repeatedly you can have any date you want and assign it to your inferences to the best explanations you want. The age of the universe does not help you in any way ...[text shortened]... y is to show how old the universe is if right, only shows you how old the universe is, nothing more.
@sonhouse saidOne never gets answers from KellyJay.
@divegeester
Looks like there will be no answer to that one.