I know, all religions are a bad joke. I don't know why anyone still supports them. Science doesn't come with any great cost, it simply serves us well.
Yet science only reveals that which it has the evidence to reveal as truth.......Science cannot present a truthful origin to the Universe..........Science cannot present a truthful origin to biological life. Men pretend to be working with science....but real science can be applied to project facts, what some call science today (theoretical science and cosmology) are nothing but Human philosophies pretending to be real science, as the first rules of applying science is it must be Observable, Reproducible and Consistent with each application of experimentation.
I believe in SCIENCE and the LAWS OF PHYSICS......I simply accept only APPLIED SCIENCE as truth, the rest is opinion, speculation, conjecture and assumptions. Theories are called theories for a reason........the lack of evidence to prove they are FACTS of SCIENCE.
Its impossible to have observed something from the past. The only method of calibrating truth would be RECORDED HISTORY.......which has been documented to be but thousands of years.
The majority of theoretical science is DOGMA......its based upon conjecture, assumption, and speculation (another word for GUESS). Its impossible to observe reality today and conclude the same conditions existed eon's ago.......but all the theories of Carbon Dating, Geology, and archaeology claim the universe has been static over eons and apply that which is observable today against that which is history. How can you accurately date and calibrate anything's age past recorded history.....you cannot.
When I am dead and buried and perhaps thousands of years from now someone might dig me up.........I hope they don't claim that I am as old as the dirt that I am buried in. Fossils are often dating like this, by the supposed age of the rock they are found in........and in a continuance of circular logic, the strata is dated by the fossils that are located within the dirt. And they declare they can prove this via radio carbon dating, as if the rate of decay in certain radio active elements has remained static over the eons........when its been proven that every inch of earth's surface at some point in its history has been UNDER WATER.
Thus the theory that claims that the rate of decay has been static over the eon's with certain radioactive elements, when in reality Applied Science proves that simple water leeching effects the rate of decay, the earth's magnetic field effect said decay.....etc. The universe is in a constant state of flux in exhausting energy.
One simple question? Have you or anyone ever witnessed the Birth of a STAR? If so, name one new star that has been born over the course of human history. Don't confuse the theory that some Nebula might be a star nursery. Show me a new star that never existed before out of the billions and trillions of stars that can be observed. You can demonstrate the death of a Star....but not the birth of a new star. The excuse? It takes 10 million years for a Nova to become a New Star......which is BS. With all the stars that are visible........and the fact that it could take billions of years for the light from said star to become observable........New stars should be popping up like popcorn. All you get is a "claim" that new stars are about to be born, again based upon conjecture, speculation and assumption, or this area of the Universe is filled with NEW STARS......what they then speculation on is the fact that they have just now noticed these stars and are calling them NEW STARS The question is how do you know that which is has never been observed? You cannot.
www.britannica.com
