I think it was shimrod who , above, seems to think I should have a grasp of every scientific argument, while he himself is pretty short of any good argument , let alone a scientific one.
he also thinks I am taking on the leading thinkers of the day,- there are evidently some superior intelligencies on this thread, but I've yet to see any post from shimrod that would include him in that category.

ok, more on the sun.
the evolutionist starting assumption is that the suns core has 4.5 billion yrs of helium - not directly observed.
only a certain amount is observed.
any age calculation must make an assumption about the initial composition of the sun, assuming very little helium
    from   age of the sun    johnathan safati
he goes on to talk about the   faint young sun paradox...and how that is a problem for evolutionists.
and so jack, it is not as simple as you think.

you can call my sources, lies or nonsense if you like, but a number of the above posts are confused or make claims unsubstantiated.
beneficial mutations are not the same as novel information arising from a mutation. let me remind you that when dawkins was challenged to give an example, there was a long silence, before giving an evasive speech. if neo evo were true there ought to be plenty of example. info loss in a mutation that confers an advantage to an organism, is not new info, it cannot provide goo to you via the zoo evolution. "guest" I think asserted otherwise but failed to evidence that claim. guest did infact say, above, that "new" was needed if evolution happened at all.
so , there is the challenge, maybe just 2 or 3 examples of a mutation shown to have provided new info to validate the neo Darwin story