A good thing paper books can't be "updated edited" like wikipedia, isn't it?

[strateguy632]

1, people like to say they "know" how the universe started, refer big bang... as if fact... but see picture

not a fact! but people talk like it is fact.

not fact.

also in paper scientific book by a physicist

i bet atheists wish they can "edit this wording" like wikipedia, and *hav an edit war!

this "model" cosmogony was correctly called a theory that claimed a finite time... gasp... as a beginning... "in the beginning something created" solids.

awkward for *som atheists who tell their atheist "tweaked version". to skip the unnatural miracle, when some solid, began, appeared, and did not exist "at an earlier time" as the physicist bothered to describe.

that in book is the theory suggested by science. so...

if you don't believe THAT , but tweak it for your own faith... don't mock others who are skeptic of "scientists" about other stuff... you don't accept it either.

look at this shockingly poor choice of words trying to "dance around god" avoid, without saying the word god...

the thing that made the neutrons of matter was "a single event" some mysterious event... people *hav blind faith in *som mysterious explanation rather than say an unnatural miracle, because miracle must have been by god.

instead if "god created neutrons" they try to avoid that word god "a single event gave birth!" just admit it was an unnatural miracle done by someone able to do miracles.

awkward to need blind faith in science about a mystery... if you need faith, and have strong blind faith... might as well call it god. that matches a miracle.

these cosmogony descriptions pretend they are thinking logical as if it has any logic without god... atheists try so hard... but even atheists don't believe the "science" version, they adjust a version and deny science. and the same atheists mock skeptics about other science stuff. so isn't this great that paper books can't be edited by people with agendas?

[TommyMountainFigure]

We learn new things all the time. What might have been accurate centuries ago, especially in the field of technology, may not be so accurate today.
They use to believe the world was flat and you could simply fall off. (some people STILL do )

[strateguy632]

wrong. books are good enough.
you yourself said century!

[TommyMountainFigure]

Why would a book be right centuries ago, and not right today? Because if apply that logic, would not the New Testament be considered wrong to that of the Old Testament? Seeing as that was already written before it was changed?

[strateguy632]

but i already agreed with you, about century.
the problem is changing dictionary websites, to help someone win a debate while debating.

[TommyMountainFigure]

Ahhhhh Now I understand. . Sorry I was a bit slow on the uptake.. This heat has got inside my brain.