[MEGoody]

Exactly. Neither can they predict weather with any real accuracy, nor control it. They can't cure cancer, AIDS, or even the common cold. There are so many basic things science has not yet figured out, but they pretend to have some clue about the age of the universe. I certainly hope they are willing to accept skepticism of their claims.

[PatrickHenry]

I certainly hope they are willing to accept skepticism of their claims.

The skepticism would be much more useful if the skeptics could specify which of the observations of astronomy and cosmology they dispute, and state the specific reasons for the dispute. If you accept the observed data but doubt the conclusions, it would be very interesting if you would provide us with an alternative model which better accommodates the data. That's how the game is played.

[Physicist]

Neither can they predict weather with any real accuracy, nor control it. They can't cure cancer, AIDS, or even the common cold. There are so many basic things science has not yet figured out, but they pretend to have some clue about the age of the universe.

First of all, weather prediction, cancer, AIDS and the common cold are all very hard problems compared to measuring the age of the universe. The latter is simply a matter of undergraduate math and a sufficiently powerful telescope. Second of all, the scientists who work on one problem are not the same people who work on any other. What you've said is rather like upbraiding a dentist for the slow pace of research into treating pancreatic cancer.

I certainly hope they are willing to accept skepticism of their claims.

Certainly, as long as it's backed by substantive thought.