>I appreciate your time in educating the youth. It's a very important job, and I'm glad that it's being done by someone that does consider these things.

Thanks for that. Be assured that I do it with passion.. and I'm quite lucky that they give me back the positivity.

> Science doesn't claim to be correct.

That's what the vast majority don't get.

Thanks for the encouragement but as an analogy I'm more a watch it from the couch kind of guy. I guess also a coach since I'm tutoring students (Maths and Physics), so maybe one of them will make a breakthrough :)

Completely agreed but OP's question was about questioning our measure of the universe's age.

Considering what we just said, I think that the range park that we got has close to no chance to be right. Our entire theory is based on the observable universe and our very vicinity, be it in time or space.

All things considered, we're pretty much toddlers trying to find the Earth's radius.

>While it is true that the speed of light is a constant

Here is the problem. That is not even true. We're basing everything on things that we ~suppose~ true. We don't even know for sure if the speed of light is not dependent on direction or on anything else that we can't grasp as limited beings.

Now that's just one foundation on what we're measuring the age of the universe. Now imagine that every single other principle is also keen to a complete misunderstanding.