I for one was waiting to read "now if you read the bible, it'll prove that........" in the original post.
Thankfully, that didn't happen.
I would suggest people read the above carefully before spending a great deal of time trying to argue this subject with Anthson. As his religious beliefs preclude trust in science, it is a waste of time using anything but the bible to convince him to change his mind.
Hi ad hominem, nice to meet you! How are you today? Me? Oh, I'm fine, just a little disappointed to see such peurile personal attacks in a thread which started out so relatively openly.

Back on topic.

Can 'science' be trusted? Yes. for precisely the reason Dalaena underlined below.

Science is constantly revising itself. That's the whole point of the entire branch of study. It constantly evolves as we postulate, discover, and study the world around us. Science isn't about belief. It's an entire process, and it's a process I find trustworthy BECAUSE it constantly questions itself. It is DESIGNED to constantly question its hypotheses. We even question the LAWS of science.
So if it is then 'scientific' to question published results, why all the hate when people come back with 'this is inconclusive/flawed/fails to account for variable X'?

The science can be trusted. The marketing which then comes along and says 'THIS ARE FACT N00BZ! STFU!' cannot.

It is the science which says that smoking cigarettes for 6 months caused no measurable disease or deterioration of the mouth, nose, throat, or associated organs within the test group.

It is the marketing which says that smoking is harmless.

It is the marketing which is the problem.

I think we can all agree on that.