If it seems to you there is a relationship, how can you deny that a relationship exists?
The fact that "creationist science seems to support" literal intepretation, even though my current position is that there is no relationship, is expressing my reservations about the current position I hold. So, it is no suprise I'm asking questions and wanting to learn, is it!?
Evangelizing for atheism is also disallowed. You have a pattern of slipping in one or two brief unsustainable assertions geared toward undermining confidence in God into your posts. I classify them as propaganda. If the appropriateness of this term offends, you're, welcome to request I employ another. 'Evangelizing' would certainly be among the candidates.
Well, that is the second time you've accused me of "propaganda", which is clearly meant as an insult. I'm not making any arguments for the position I currently hold. I'm not even confident the position I currently hold is tenable, yet you accuse me of systematic spreading of ideology. I'm going to have to report you, because you're making such accusations without any good reason.
I have discussed the content of your posts. All I know of your character is what's been displayed. I know nothing of your credentials, and I certainly am not so naive as to simply take claims posted anonymously on the internet at face value.
Ad hominem attacks -- discussions about someone's credentials or character are disallowed unless the exchange necessitates a clear need to point out a problem with a source of the information. Such exceptions shall be few and brief.
If pointing out discrepancies and logical fallacies constituted ad hom, practically no debate would be possible. Perhaps you take things too personally?
You have not once provided any reason to question the existence of a relationship. Your denial-based position should be abandoned outright when you know of so many relationships.
So you don't think there is a relationship between the Bible and science, or are you merely trying to put words in my mouth, even though in my last post I explained my views on why I have questions about such a relationship?
You are? I see you're not keen on the law of non-contradiction. We discussed this law some months ago; I forget the title of the thread.
Sorry, about it. I didn't know we needed to take baby steps. Given Genesis seems to be supported by Creation Science, I am assuming there must be a relationship
When one simultaneously holds two opposite and irreconcilable views on the first question, it is not time to move on. It is time to resolve one way or the other.
(even though I do not yet understand it), so it seemed appropriate to move on to the next question, how does this relationship work?
I thought the answers provided in this thread were sufficient, including my own of course, or I wouldn't have posted it.
I thought my question was pretty straight forward, "How should I interpret the following quotes; 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:12-14?"
No - that is not a loaded question. It can simply answered in the negative, without taking on any further burden. It is a suggestive question. I'm reluctant to link you to descriptions of logical fallacies; I have an idea it would not be in my best interest. Your practice so far has been to employ such and then cry ad hom when you get caught.
What is "loaded" about that? Just out of curiousity, do you jump at shadows? (now, that's a loaded question!)
Nonsense! You have asserted all sorts of things, and I quoted some right there when I mentioned them. Do you not know what an assertion is? It happens when something is asserted.
What assertions? I haven't made any assertion or any argument!