You have to kidding?
In what way does anything you had to say counter the obvious problem with your point of view? "Real science" would accurately deal with the fact that light alleged to be 13.2 billion years old should *NOT* reveal what we see using the "real science" of the images obtained by Hubble. What you had to say is nothing more than a "thinly veiled" ad hominem attack, the favorite device of those that know their arguments cannot stand logical scrutiny. Here's a thought for you- if God exists and if He is the Creator of all we see, then "real science" will in fact align with that. The evidence works against the naturalistic world view. The most scientific statement that can be made then would be, In the beginning God . . .
