Validity Of Genesis 3

The SIDP doesn't seem to suggest that positive evidence exists for the Genesis 3 serpent's existence, nor does the SIDP seem to insist that the Genesis 3 account is historical fact. The SIDP seems to propose science's findings that seem to preclude categorizing the account as necessarily or even likely fiction. The relevant portion of the website essay presents science's findings that seem to suggest the potential for the apparently Biblically-suggested serpent to have existed, and presents apparently reasonable, potential conditions under which such an apparently potentially-existent being might leave no relatively contemporarily discovered or identified evidence.

Validity Of Adam And Eve As Humanity's Starting Point

I seem to respectfully abstain from that debate since, to me, the Bible seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that Adam and Eve might have been the first two in the lineage of Israel, since the Old Testament seems reasonably suggested to be about the God/human relationship within the context of a sample group selected for the purpose of helping all humans better understand the nature of the human experience and its apparent dependence upon the God/human relationship.

Defining "Closed System" For The Laws Of Conservation

per my fallible understanding, the sole difference between a closed and open system is that an open system is considered to include a surrounding context to and from which system components can transfer. A closed system seems to be a context to and from which system components cannot transfer to surrounding context. Logic seems to suggest that a closed system can therefore apply to either a sealed subset context or the superset since, in the former, no system components can transfer to or from the subset context, and in the latter, since a superset refers to "all that exists" there exists no surrounding context for system component exchange.

The Reasoning For God As Wielder Of Energy

to me, energy seems not to have those attributes, which seems to me to suggest that there must exist a point of reference with those attributes, not solely because the Bible suggests so (although that seems to me to be the source of my exposure to the concept), but because the attributes seem most logically suggested to be intrinsic to the source of the remainder of reality, as the SIDP Attributes essay seems to demonstrate.

Response To https://twitter.com/creationwrong/status/726866202895736836

skipping over the unsubstantiated assertion "it doesn't", re: energy as God, that does not seem to be the SIDP suggestion, but rather, that science seems to attribute to energy the infinitely-existent sourcing of all other aspects of observed reality that the Bible attributes to God.

Response To https://twitter.com/creationwrong/status/726864943514017797

If I might respectfully suggest, to me, in the context of analytical discussion, "grasp at for effect" seems ad hominem. To me, within such context, a position is or isn't demonstrably reasonable and might optimally be demonstrated as such or left unaddressed. I welcome clarification.

Response To: @LindaBeatty 726648089113567232

---

To me both are religious. What is your distinction between religious people and people who believe in god? :)

---

@LindBeatty, after re-reviewing my response and your question, I think that I might have addressed a different distinction. :) Important as that distinction might seem to be to me, my answer to your question seems to be that "religious people" in your previous comment seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that belief in God is based upon lack of reason. However, the SIDP website suggests that belief in God seems strongly substantiated by science's apparent findings and reason. I welcome your thoughts. :)

Response To: @LindaBeatty 726648089113567232

---

To me both are religious. What is your distinction between religious people and people who believe in god? :)

---

@LindaBeatty, thank you for responding. :)

If I may respectfully mention, my perspective seems based upon the assumption that God exists. However, I acknowledge and respect the possibility that you might not be convinced of that assumption's validity.

The majority of proposed scientific substantiation for the following seems posted on the SIDP website. I welcome reasoned comment, question and rebuttal.

I seem to sense a distinction between God and religion. To me, God seems Biblically-suggested to be omniscient, and supremely benevolent. Religion, however, seems reasonably suggested to refer to some combination of (a) human, limited perception of God, (b) human, intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of God, and/or (c) human attempt to benevolently or otherwise administrate God/human relationship. Nonetheless, "religion" seems also reasonably interpreted as including God, since God is religion's apparently typical focus.

Your comment seems to portray "religion" negatively. To me, thus far, the above-suggested attributes of God seem to preclude God from being inappropriate. However, religion as described above, due to its apparently fallible, human element, seems logically expected to produce undesirable behavioral outcomes, even among those who claim association with God or and/or claim to be behaving on God's behalf.

Perhaps, therefore, if we assume for analysis' sake that God exists as apparently portrayed by the Bible, the potential to ascribe human failing to God seems to warrant distinguishing between God and religion.

I welcome your thoughts.