Just because you can't prove smth 100%, doesn't mean there isn't any merit in formulating and taking into account the most probable hypothesis according to scientific research. 

Just because there is no 100% evidence of the big bang doesn't mean we should discard this hypothesis entirely and consider Adam and Eve as probable.

Science literally cannot tell us anything about the past. Science is about testing a hypothesis in a reproducible way. Then you formulate a general theory based on a validated hypothesis. If your hypothesis requires a time machine to test, it cannot be tested (yet).

Science learns us about the observable world. We can only observe the lack of plant fossils at certain depths in the earth's crust. However, we cannot test any hypothesis that the reason we cannot find plants is because the was less CO2 100 million years ago.

"Scientists" are very sloppy today. They should disclaim everything related to history as an untestable hypothesis.

Even the "fact" that dinos roamed the earth is an unproven hypothesis. Although the observable evidence of large bones in fossils seems to support the hypothesis, it can never be tested and thus there will never be a scientific theory that proves the existence of dinos.

nullcount

Indeed, it's a shame science can never learn us things about the past.. Wait, how do you know there were dinosaurs?

Not saying there's any truth to this chart though.

badabing

charts_and_numbers

Historical surface temperature and CO2 concentration

Enemy_of_the_state

Ahh yes, every day I thank the dinosaurs for inventing the CO2 guage and thermometer and for keeping such robust records for us to use in our charts.