>>Where did any one but you bring up reading the Bible literally?<<
You need to follow the argument. He says the Bible “says” or “doesn’t say” xxxx. That implies literal interpretation.
My challenge of where it speaks to specific scientific constructs was met with theological answers.
If you say the Bible (or any text) “says” xxxx, you MUST quote it in its original language, else you have no idea what it “says.”
Simple for people who understand logic.
And the argument you are making was not made by him. I am sure he is happy to have you pick up his forensic failure, but if I was him I would be embarrassed by the implication he can’t fight his own fight.
You assume too much. But then again, it would be so much harder to try to discredit creationism if you couldn't make creationists look like extremists of some kind.
Even if it implies it, that doesn't raise it to the level that he actually SAID it, and therefore your demand that he support a contention that you claim he made because you thought he implied it is ludicrous.
BTW, courtesy ping to those about whom fd is referring but failing to ping, himself.