Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745794177317875716

Re: [You completely ignored how your "method" would "seem" to "substantiate" other myths], to me, the comment was not ignored, but seemed to offer no value as a rebuttal since the extent to which the concept of a higher-than-human source/authority is common to multiple schools of thought does not seem logically considered a negative quality of said concept or a negative quality of proposed substantiation by science of said concept. Apparently, to the contrary, the apparently common existence of a concept within otherwise distinguishable schools of thought seems somewhat generally considered to logically render the concept more likely valid (although not necessarily valid) via that metric alone than their differing precepts. I seem to have therefore interpreted the comment as a likely instance of "thinking out loud" that did not necessitate response. However, since, to the contrary, you seem to be calling for response to a comment apparently presented within the context of a rebuttal position, yet, that seems to substantiate the rebutted position, I respectfully respond, "To me, the proposed substantiation does seem applicable to a higher-than-human source/authority proposal by otherwise distinguishable schools of thought".

Re: "What do you imagine is resolved?", (a) the apparent assertion that the Bible is not substantiated by science seems to have been falsified, and (b) the matter of other proposed Bible/science conflicts that do not seem germane to the Bible's apparent main message seems to have been de-prioritized, apparently, therefore, allowing analysis to move forward to the apparently more germane matter of substantiation by science of the Bible's apparent main message.