HBD had given a list of scientific discoveries that I was trying to show followed from replicable testable procedures as opposed to the mush-minded conclusions historical sciences come to, which they nevertheless pronounce factual, which deceives the poor ordinary human being into thinking they have the same kind of solid foundation for their fanciful scenarios as supports the shape of the DNA molecule and the recognition of the gas the sun burns etc.
Do you think that the work of Bonanno
et al/ (2002), 'The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS' -
http://www.aanda.org/...ull/2002/30/aa2598/aa2598.right.html -
provides a solid foundation for the view that the age of the Sun is 4.570.11 billion years, or that the conclusion, based on the fact that the Sun is fusing hydrogen to helium, that its main-sequence stage will last for roughly ten billion years -
The Final Stages of the Evolution of a Sun-like Star | Astronomy 801: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe - is based on a solid foundation?
™ Version 4.2