I'm sorry, I wasn't structuring my words in relation to how others have written you - I am not referring to anyone.<quoted text>
Well, WTF? You told me that I need to learn how to read science better...
When I tell an atheist that, they call it Christian apologetics.
It's a two way street, shuggatits.
And, no, it's not a two way street. Christian apologetics make excuses for poor theological rationalizations.
I am not making excuses for scientific knowledge changing. That's the very nature of science - change is utterly and wholly expected. If you think otherwise, you don't understand science.
Science doesn't live in the past. It lives in the now by tested and disproving our cherished notions. It's not dogmatic; we constantly disprove our current knowledge and move on. It's the opposite of dogmatic religious beliefs - and this is why I believe you have issues with it. In your writing, you seem to want science to pronounce stable "truths" about the universe. Well, sorry, our understandings are constantly being refined.