Blog #2 post was coherent, but didn't have a conclusive point. Then in the Science post #1 it was not defensible as laid out. It was really a question of who gives your free will because clearly every reaction of your life is laid out. It's similar to the thinking that "It was his time." It struck me as very dogmatic. Maybe it's the devolution of the conversation?
I just read two pages of the original blogs Roger posted. I originally smelled a fundie in his first post. Seeing what it leads to, I think that I'll attempt to dodge the poo pile that is that conversation. Poo Pile for me, gold to the next guy!
hey Dave! thank you for the welcome :o) I just randomly stumbled across this site, definitely going to enjoy checking it out and hopefully get involved in the blog side of things (I'm a bit of a novice there lol).