For example, Science by Definition is amoral. It will tell you how to build a bomb, but it does't ask if we should build a bomb.
That's not because of any limit of science, but because it's impossible to answer the question "should" without stating a goal. once you state the goal, the answer is trivial, provided you know the science. e.g. should i remove the squirrel form under my porch? i don't know. do you want it under you porch? yes = leave it, no = remove it. see how that necessarily needs two parts? for a more complicated problem you'd need science. e.g. should we vaccinate? that's a moral question. should you inject a needle into everyone containing a dormant virus? well that depends... what's your goal? okay, lets say our goal is to avoid physical pain. then science tells us the answer is no. what does religion tell us? nothing. it doesn't tell us if it's going to hurt or not. science tells us that. you want to minimize pain in the long run? science tells us we should do it then. religion, again, tells us nothing.
- It claims to have an answer for how the universe began but it has no repeatable experiments to back it up.
i believe someone already pointed out this is false.
- It appeals to "just take it on faith" that the universe "spontaneously" came into existence from nothing, not realizing the physical universe has always existed.
no, as much as i personally think the big bang theory is incredibly presumptions, it doesn't take it on faith.
- It makes claims that there "must" be "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" yet has no way to measure it, let alone see it.
dark matter/energy is a placeholder term for excess gravitational effects that have been observed and measured
- It still doesn't have a clue what gravity is, what consciousness is, what magnetism, why EMF is linked, why time flows in one direction, why we dream, what Lucid Dreaming and the Out-of-Body Experience is, the different types of consciousness, why we even exist in the first place, the purpose of the Universe (Answer: Relationships), etc.
firstly, this is the annoyingly common "god of the gaps" argument. secondly, a whole lot of that is just plain wrong and a whole lot is a bad question.
* gravity - yes it does. there's a problem of joining general relativity with quantum physics. that's a mathematical problem, not an empirical one.
* consciousness is a word we use to give ourselves pride. it's really not meaningful / useful beyond that.
* why we even exist is already assuming way too much and making some serious philosophical blunders. firstly, it's assuming teleology. and anthropocentric teleology at that.
* purpose of the universe - same problem, teleology. and anthropocentric teleology at that.
Science is not interested in pursuing ALL answers to questions such as:
+ What happens before Life?
yes it is. there are many facets to that question. do you want to talk about sperm and egg cells? astrology? proto-life? be more specific and yes, since is very interested in that.
+ What happens after Death?
a lot. but usually, there's a funeral, and your body slowly decays or maybe is cremated. here's an experiment: take a plant, don't water it. observe.
Because there are ZERO equations with consciousness in them.
again, not meaningful
Scientists and Science is stuck in the archaic Reductionism and Materialism model that it can't think outside the box and grasp that meta-physical DOES exist, such as Time, Numbers, etc.
Carl Sagan once said
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Max Planck wrote the biggest criticism of Science was:
Science advances one funeral at a time.
If Science was focused on THE fundamental question:
and if Scientists were more honest and admitted that Science has _some_ of the answers, instead of pretending it has _all_ the answers, if Science was used as a means to augment our understanding instead being a pseudo-replacement for Religion, of being genuine interested in pursing ALL knowledge answering "How" instead of letting ego get in the way pretending it has the answers to "Why", THEN it might be respected by everyone.
you have a WHOLE LOT to learn about the philosophy of science. As, sadly, do most people in America. that is why it does not get the respect it deserves today. the era of enlightment, it got a lot more respect. and you know what we now call that era? the era of enlightment. but yeah, you have a lot to learn. pick up a book on it. maybe an introduction book, maybe some of the greats - popper, newton, descarte, russel, aristotle... there's plenty to read.
 Proof that the Physical Universe has always existed:
1. Einstein showed us Energy and Matter are equivalent
2. Thermodynamics shows us that Energy can not be created nor destroyed only change form.
3. Ergo, the Physical Universe has always existed.
yeah... you got a few things wrong there. not even worth it.
though i do agree that the universe has "always" existed. that's a tautology. to say there was a time the universe did not exist... well, time implies universe, so that's self-disproving.