I can get behind being suspicious of sources, like the USG, that are notorious liars. It is the only reasonable way to proceed with known liars.

However, I can't get behind dismissing science that is simply not understood, or because it conflicts with dogma or ideology. I don't dismiss your personal faith, and indeed account it a good - even if I don't share it. I strongly support your right to speak your mind. I don't recommend speaking your mind on matters that you aren't confident (superably) you fully comprehend, at least insofar as it reveals your statements are due to your incomprehension, and to be contrary to reason. It's not because we may disagree, but because it reduces confidence in your veracity and reliability.

I follow you for a reason, and that is because I consider you a reliable source. You have demonstrable integrity, and even if we disagree I have a high level of confidence you are saying only what you believe is true. I don't expect flawless grasp of complex issues from anyone (least of all me), but there is a limit to the utility of integrity, and that limit is closely linked to reason. If you are aware you don't understand something, the only reasonable comment is to acknowledge that lack of understanding, or point to those whose understanding you resonate with.

Some of your statements in this post are very misleading. Science cannot address God, for example. Scientists have personal opinions, but conflating those opinions with science is extremely prejudicial, and grossly wrong. Science is only a method for proving something cannot be true. Accordingly, there being no means of empirically testing God to ascertain whether God exists or not, much less whether any particular dogma or faith based belief regarding God is true or not, ascribing to science itself any support for atheism is just plain false.

Science is inherently agnostic, not just regarding religion, but all questions. Science can never prove anything at all. In fact, science can never actually disprove anything either, but merely provide consistent and convincing evidence that something is not the case. Our physical universe demonstrates consistent features, and experiment has revealed that many theories about the universe cannot be true (all such claims are necessarily moderated natively by the caveat that more information, and better understanding of that information, can change that), and leaves only those theories that MIGHT be true left standing.

Accordingly, despite misconstruing the Big Bang theory as proven in our public school indoctrinations here in the US, the propagandists have not proved anything. There may be many good reasons to believe the Big Bang theory is true, but there are also good reasons to suspect it is not, and I'm speaking scientifically, not from dogma or a religious faith perspective. In the opinion of some scientists (bad scientists IMHO) the Big Bang theory is a fact. They cannot prove that to be so. Honest scientists will correctly state that the best evidence indicates the Big Bang is the best theory (except for those who accord other evidence and theories primacy), and few will state it is disproven. There's a great deal we presently cannot know about the origin of the universe, and claims any particular theory is proven are hostile assaults on truth.

Indeed, this is the primary proof that climate alarmism is nothing more than propaganda. It is the very claims that it is proven, that 'the science is settled' that completely disprove it has any scientific validity whatsoever. I believe you understand and have commented on exactly that principle before on that topic.

Also, the origin and evolution of SpaceX is public information. If you don't know it, that's on you. Not knowing it, and claiming SpaceX sprang up out of nowhere is disingenuous, and making such statements colors all your other statements with the doubt definite falsehoods must - just as do the USG's claims about the Moon landing.

Don't do that my friend. Calling something 'anti-bible' because it is pro-truth and religious faith is not something science can confirm or deny is logically false. There are real statements that are anti-bible, anti-koran, and anti-good altogether, and conflating mere science with any of them casts you in a bad, and insuperable, light. I think you are actually pro-science. Where your personal faith depends on statements of positive fact, knowing that science is nothing but theories experiment indicates are more or less likely makes denying science unnecessary - and counterproductive.

It is better to be forthright and point out that one does not know a thing, than to deny something because one does not know. Science does not know anything, and although many people, including many scientists themselves, misunderstand what science is and can do, and make irrational statements as a result, that true fact means you do not ever have to feel that where some scientific theory conflicts with your faith you must deny the validity of scientific inquiry.

That is a basic tenet of Islam. It is that tenet that has destroyed the scientific community of Muslim culture, from it's position of being on the cutting edge in Arabia to being practically non-existent today. The difference between Islam and your faith only became relevant after the Inquisition ended, because that denial of facts, or even inquiry into facts, prevents new knowledge from being understood and learned. Islam, and the Church of the Inquisition, maintain that all knowledge permissible is contained in religion.

Don't fall for that lie. I know you are more honest and intelligent than that.