Dear Ms. Boop,
I do find your converstation interesting. Indeed, if we are going to argue creationism vs. evolution, let's at least do it well. You and Alamo-Girl represent your side well.
It is a whole lot more interesting to argue with you, because it is intelligent, rather than the usual crevo threads which devolve essentially to:
You are an anti-God, satanist and will burn in hell.
No, you are stupid, your children are stupid, and your whole life is stupid.
After a while, this begins to wear on all of us.
Good morning 2ndreconmarine! I don't consider myself a creationist. :^) In fact, I am an evolutionist, though I think Darwinian theory is way too narrow a view of this vast and intriguing subject. That's probably because I really am looking for a "Theory of Everything" (ToE); and it seems to me that a ToE must address and explain, er, everything that exists in the universe. And it's clear to me that consciousness, epistemology, are existents about which Darwinist theory is totally silent.
And Swenson isn't a creationist either. He evidently thinks absolutely everything that takes place in the Universe proceeds according to the physical laws, especially the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the great law of what doesn't change (the first law) and the engine of universal change (the second law). If he has an opinion about God, I don't know what it is. But it is very clear to me that God is not "in" his theory.
FWIW, I'm as sick of the typical crevo nastiness as you are.
BTW, I didn't "disagree" with what you wrote in your earlier post. In fact, I found it fascinating as a mathematical approach to modeling the behavior of energetic systems in nature, especially in view of its sensitivity to the relevance of microstates to the determination of the macroscopic behavior of the system under investigation.
Thank you so much for writing!