science or religion, page-16

It's just another straw man. No one suggests that any aspect of science is 'beyond question'.

And there is no 'absolute truth'.

If you want to question science you are free to do so like anyone else. But if you just 'question' without providing any basis for your 'questions' - such as conflicting evidence or flaws in the science - you have to be prepared for the consequences - ranging from being completely ignored to receiving a bit of ridicule and everything in between.

If you were a scientist, what you would do is gather evidence to determine the answer to your question. Or evidence supporting your thesis that the accepted science is unsound or incomplete. You'd test it every which way - because extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Once you were satisfied your research was robust you'd publish and open your findings to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. You'd also be prepared for vigorous questioning and quite a bit of scrutiny. If your findings held up then you'd have contributed to science. Even if they didn't you'd have contributed knowledge.

Whatever - if you were a scientist, you wouldn't just do what so many posters here do and say 'I don't believe the science that's supported by all the research, multiple lines of evidence and is consistent with all the relevant scientific theories - not because I found any flaws or evidence to the contrary which I haven't - it's just because I don't feel like it'.