No, but the inference on stars is much more credible than the fantastical inferences made by evolutionists. Tell me, precisely how is new information added to the genome in the NS+random mutation process? Has Dawkins or anyone else figured this out yet? Until they do, their inference is a wild guess based on their worldview presuppositions.
Inference is a fundamental part of all science. If you can't learn to accept it, perhaps your time would be better employed on the golf course.
No, but we have the declaration of independence and we know that men signed it as there is no other way for it to exist. It didn't just self-assemble as is required for the first life on earth. I see you are not discriminatory in your ad hominem attacks. Any creationist or Christian is a target, right?
Based on what measure? No one's ever seen but a handful of stars go through a single stellar change, much less the whole evolution.
Tell me, precisely how is new information added to the genome in the NS+random mutation process?
Tell me precisely how a star goes to brown dwarf? Do you have the exact chemical and physical constraints mapped? Do you understand precisely the dynamics of collapse? Perhaps you can describe in a few equations the nature and extent of the turbulance features on the surface I can expect to be able to map with a telescope?
Has Dawkins or anyone else figured this out yet? Until they do, their inference is a wild guess based on their worldview presuppositions.
Again, not "wild" guesses--incisive guesses based on--and checked against--detailed inference about known behaviors. Do we know all the details? No. That doesn't differentiate micro-biology from any other natural science.
By the way, I'd be cautious about throwing that "information" argument around as if it meant something. Mutation, genome capture, and sexual variation and recessive hibernation create changes, sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing the complexity of genetic heritage, and thereby changing its responses to the environment. Whether that is information, and whether that information content went up or down, is an environmentally dependent notion, and is a hard point to demonstrate, or do anything useful with.
Sure there is. A cabal of revolutionaries could have made up this whole story and cobbled together the evidence as an afterthought for to unite and inspire the revolutionary colonists. Do you have a credible chain of first-hand or sworn testimonial witnesses going back from the present moment to 1774? How do you expect me to take such a theory seriously with so many missing links?
It didn't just self-assemble as is required for the first life on earth.
Self-assembly is not the only, or even the most popular, biological theory on the table.
I see you are not discriminatory in your ad hominem attacks. Any creationist or Christian is a target, right?
If you will check, oh sensitive one, my interlocuter himself made a reference to hieing himself off to the golf course.