Oh well, if I have to illustrate how stupid your use of language is... If the sun "makes" weather, then the oven "makes" the cake...
Speaking being soooo stupid about science: there are no chemical reactions in the sun; it's all nuclear reactions. The source of the sun's fuel is hydrogen and helium gases. Through a special chemical reaction, called nuclear fusion, the hydrogen gas is "burned" releasing an enormous amount of energy in the form of light and heat. http://www.extremescience.com/sun.htm
I'm looking for the penalty flag. stu, I think you have misunderstood my remarks. I would venture to say that 90% of what we call science is empirical. There is no dispute with classical science and faith. My remarks regarding faith were aimed at the portions [rather large portions, I might add] of the theory of evolution that cannot be observed and cannot be replicated in the lab, and which in fact are held together by the use of large amounts of time. Vast amounts of time. So, my friend, you tell me the difference between my faith, and the important components of the evolutionary theory that are hypothetical scenarios that by design needed to occur millions and billions of years ago, which you believe happened but have not one shred of evidence to confirm it.
WTF, dude. There is a huge dispute between science and faith. Faith is belief without evidence, whereas science is all about the evidence. Nobody proposes a scientific theory without evidence to back it up. A lot of scientific theories have been wrong, but only because they couldn't explain new evidence whereas a better theory could explain the old evidence plus the new evidence. You say evolution has no evidence but that couldn't be more wrong. The fossil record is filled with species that no longer exist, and very few modern lifeforms are found in the fossil record. There are even some transitional species in the fossil record. If that's not iron-clad evidence that life evolves, give us your theory.
Unfortunately modern day atheistic science is no longer about the evidence. Modern day science is about making up fantasy connections to data points that are not truly based on evidence in any fashion... Scientists will always speculation, but their speculations are not evidence of anything but their own imaginations at work... That the followers of atheistic science then pronounce the mythology of scientists as facts of science is proof that atheists have taken to a faith based religion, where scientists serve the same role as shamans or prophets of the past...
Apparently your definition of "modern day atheistic science" includes Darwinism (1859). If there's no evidence, these "fraud" sciences should be easy to expose. Yet all you ever do is accuse without a shred of evidence of your own to back up your accusations.
Darwin never said anything near what modern day atheistic scientists are claiming he said... Darwin presented his observations, threw out a theory, and that was it. Darwin was in no way an atheist...
I am pro science, which takes no position beyond the scope of science... The atheists with their atheistic agenda don't argue from scientific fact, they argue from their atheistic religion and their agenda. They believe there is no God, so they fit whatever facts to meet that agenda. This is not science... Nowhere did Darwin say that what he observed was atheistic...
"creation science" ... LOL you know what I've found ... the "smartest" people say the most idiotic things further, it's a rare event when someone references thermodynamics when explaining their faith (believe it or not, I did take advanced thermodynamics as an undergrad, I had A's going, until I lost interest)