Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745750200216621056

If I might respectfully suggest, if I propose reconciled Biblical main message and science, and you counter by challenging Bible/science reconcilability, and I demonstrate the apparent evidentiary weakness of that counter by demonstrating reconciliation of multiple Biblical assertions apparently previously considered irreconcilable , and propose that (a) those reconciliations seem to logically render the remaining proposed conflicts reasonably considered at least potentially reconcilable, (b) the remaining conflicts seem relatively irrelevant to the apparent Biblical main message, (c) the apparent Biblical main message seems so much more important than those remaining proposed conflicts, (d) the apparent Biblical main message seems solidly reconciled to science, and I propose moving analysis forward to the apparent Biblical main message, if you then repeat the apparently resolved counter of challenged Bible/science reconcilability, the repeated, apparently reasonably resolved counter might be the cause of a circular discussion.

Response To https://twitter.com/LindaBeatty/status/745618103132786688

(a) Aside from possible "poetic license" by prophets, God's statement seems a bit less abstract (Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 4:7). Perhaps to put criticism of God as malevolent into possibly more balanced perspective, consider the very next verse after Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 2:18.

(b) When humans say it, it seems either most likely logically false or intentionally harmful. When God says what God says (perhaps not exactly that phrase), it seems most likely logically true, apparently based at least upon the apparent need of limited, fallible human perspective for omniscient, supremely benevolent guidance, that need apparently substantiated by human science and history.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745726506245054465

I don't seem to claim to possess irrefutable reconciliation of every Biblical statement with science's findings. Validation of my presentation doesn't seem to require that because (a) I seem to have reconciled science with a subset of apparent Biblical assertion that seemed previously criticized as falsified by and irreconcilable with science's findings, (b) having done so seems to remove the "irrefutably irreconcilable" label from the remainder of Biblical assertion, (c) those Biblical "micro-assertions" do not seem to constitute the main focus of the Bible's apparent main message, but seem to constitute various points presented to convey the Bible's main message, and (d) I do seem to propose reconcilability of the Bible's main message with science's findings.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745523243138719744

The analogy seems to illustrate my point. Each surface area of the wool string seems reasonably suggested to have the capability to portray image. Relative image portrayal capacity seems a function of the size of the total image and the size of the wool string surface area being considered. Application of this analogy to the context being discussed seems to be that each "unit" of energy that participates in the possibly multiple-part eventualities apparently referred to as sentience, intelligence and will seems reasonably suggested to be capable of a less complex instance, the comparative complexity seeming reasonably suggested to be a function of the capacity of the more complex system and that of the energy unit being considered.