Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 286 of 425 (541257)
01-01-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by greyseal
01-01-2010 6:44 PM


Re: Kind
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
Now, silly me, I thought you were a creationist who believed that god made kinds as set, specific, unchanging Kinds (dogs always make dogs, you said - and wolves always make wolves) and that evolution therefore cannot ever happen through any known mechanism.
I am a creationist. Just not your average creationist. I believe in the begining God created the heaven and the earth. All things found in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:24 took place prior to Genesis 1:2.
In Genesis 1:21-25 God called forth fish, birds, animals, all living creatures after their own kind out of the water and the ground.
These creatures He called forth had existed prior to this time.
greyseal writes:
Now you're telling me that dogs and wolves - two DISTINCT kinds - can have hybrid babies, and THOSE babies can have babies, and produce...NEW KINDS?
Yes except I think I refered to the offspring as hybrids.
greyseal writes:
As, and I'll ask you once again to answer the darned question, WHAT IS THE OFFSPRING OF A WOLF AND A DOG?
IS IT A WOLF?
IS IT A DOG?
IS IT A NEW KIND?
it must be a, b or c.
Pick one. answer the question. do not bring up any other strawmen until you have.
IS IT A WOLF? NO
IS IT A DOG? NO
IS IT A NEW KIND? NO
IT IS HALF WOLF AND HALF DOG. THAT MAKES IT A HYBRID.
If you take these half breeds and breed them to half breeds and continue to do so you can blurr the lines until they almost disappear competely. There will be thousands of hybrids created in the process.
But they will all be a hybrid of a wolf and dog cross.
And the dog and the wolf will still exist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by greyseal, posted 01-01-2010 6:44 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by DrJones*, posted 01-01-2010 9:29 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 294 by greyseal, posted 01-02-2010 8:12 AM ICANT has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 287 of 425 (541258)
01-01-2010 8:58 PM


Summary
I think this thread has shown that the concept of "kinds" is a religious one, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to the findings made by science.
Science follows the empirical evidence where it leads, even when it contradicts someone's religious beliefs.
Religious believers must follow their scriptures or other sources of belief even when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary.
So let's all just agree to disagree, eh?
But that means you don't try to teach your religious belief in schools or have it mandated by some governmental agency, and I won't demand equal time in your church.
Fair enough?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2010 11:34 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 295 by greyseal, posted 01-02-2010 8:19 AM Coyote has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 288 of 425 (541261)
01-01-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by hooah212002
01-01-2010 8:43 PM


Re: Kind
Hi hooah,
hooah writes:
Hi ICANT. I posted two things I'd like a response about.
In Message 271 you quote a sciencemag article that states domestic dogs existed 12,000 years ago. It did not state but I assume the wolf existed also.
That being the case if the earth was covered with water some 6000 years ago and God did a restoration project and called all the creatures we have today from their kind what is your queston? What is your problem with the different kinds that exist today?
In Message 275 you reference an extinct carnivorous marsupial and ask me if it is a Dog? Wolf? Kangaroo? Tiger?
It is none of those but was a carnivorous marsupial hybrid.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by hooah212002, posted 01-01-2010 8:43 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by hooah212002, posted 01-01-2010 9:26 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 370 by Jaderis, posted 01-09-2010 9:16 AM ICANT has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 289 of 425 (541262)
01-01-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by ICANT
01-01-2010 9:22 PM


Re: Kind
In Message 271 you quote a sciencemag article that states domestic dogs existed 12,000 years ago. It did not state but I assume the wolf existed also.
Try reading the article, ICANT. It says dogs are descendants of wolves. Wolves were bred/tamed to be dogs.
{ABE} I said article. It's not an article. It's a PAPER. A scientific paper published in a, accredited journal.
In Message 275 you reference an extinct carnivorous marsupial and ask me if it is a Dog? Wolf? Kangaroo? Tiger?
It is none of those but was a carnivorous marsupial hybrid.
I asked you WHAT KIND IS IT? Did god put a carnivorous marsupial hybrid kind on the ark? Is that a kind now
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : clarified article=journal

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 9:22 PM ICANT has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 290 of 425 (541263)
01-01-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by ICANT
01-01-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Kind
IS IT A NEW KIND? NO
Why not? if it is no longer of the wolf kind and no longer of the dog kind then it must be of the wolf-dog kind

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 8:44 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 291 of 425 (541266)
01-01-2010 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Coyote
01-01-2010 8:58 PM


"Kinds" do exist...
I think this thread has shown that the concept of "kinds" is a religious one, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to the findings made by science.
Well, that's not entirely true.
The concept of "kinds," types of living things that can be distinguished from other types, is certainly not unscientific.
The problem is simply that there is more than one level of classification.
Scientific "kinds" are Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. In science, we call it "taxonomy." The classification is done according to morphology.
In fact, its even true that "kinds" do not turn into other "kinds." A vertibrate will never give birth to an invertebrate, for example - evolution specifically predicts that this just won;t happen. What will happen is that existing "kinds" will give rise to new subdivisions. The result is the nested hierarchy of known life represented by modern taxonomy:
For example, all plants are part of the plant "kind," or Kingdom. No descendant of the plant kingdom will ever be anything other than a plant - but there are separate phylum, classes, species, etc of plants, divided and subdivided according to their morphology as divergent populations form from common ancestors.
A common Creationist misconception is that we should expect organisms from one classification to cross over into another, pre-existing classification - that is, that dogs will turn into cats, or snakes will become plants. Evolution predicts no such thing - but it does predict that within existing populations, subgroups will diversify and become distinct from their common ancestors. THis is exactly what we see when we examine modern life and the fossil record.
For example - the earliest known vertebrates formed around 525 million years ago. All modern vertebrates can be traced back to these originals - including humans, dogs, cats, snakes, birds, and everything else with a backbone. No vertebrate has ever produced invertebrate offspring.
After the rise of vertebrates, they subdivided into new classifications - cartilaginous versus bony, different types of jaw, and so on. New "kinds" were created as populations of vertibrates diversified from each other and became distinct "kinds" of their own.
Human beings are of the "human" kind. We are also of the "ape" kind - because we are hominids. We are also of the "monkey" kind because all apes are monkeys. We are also of the "mammal" kind because all monkeys are mammals. You see how this goes - it's simply a hierarchical model of classification determined by the morphology of a given organism. No "kind" turns into another "kind" - all new "kinds" remain forever members of the classification that gave rise to them, and are simply distinct from other members of the same class.
The direct observation of morphology and the way it easily (not just easily, but perfectly) fits into a hierarchical model by which new subdivisions arise from the diversification of existing populations as well as the fact that the fossil record and all manner of dating methods show that indeed new subdivisions always arise in order (for example, in the fossil record eukaryote precede vertebrates which precede mammals which precede monkeys which precede apes which precede homo sapiens) is perhaps the best evidence supporting the modern Theory of Evolution.
The issue with Creationism is more one of an incorrect usage of terminology and simply misunderstandings as to what the Theory of Evolution actually predicts, as well as the layman's typical ignorance of how taxonomic classifications actually work.
ICANT is somewhat correct. All "dogd" will be of the "dog" kind. No dog will ever become anything other than a dog.
But dogs are classified into finer subdivisions according to their morphology - chihuahuas, retrievers, etc. And all dogs are in fact wolves:
quote:
The domestic dog was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Carolus Linnaeus in 1758,[14][15] and was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists. Overwhelming evidence from behavior, vocalizations, morphology, and molecular biology led to the contemporary scientific understanding that a single species, the gray wolf, is the common ancestor for all breeds of domestic dogs;[3][16]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Coyote, posted 01-01-2010 8:58 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2010 11:46 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 298 by hooah212002, posted 01-02-2010 10:02 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 292 of 425 (541268)
01-01-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Rahvin
01-01-2010 11:34 PM


Re: "Kinds" do exist...
But dogs are classified into finer subdivisions according to their morphology - chihuahuas, retrievers, etc. And all dogs are in fact wolves
I actually have some questions about this, if you or someone smart about this could help me? Namely, those African wild dogs who wander across my screen whenever I get addicted to the Discovery channel -- are they also descended from wolves? Or a separate species of canis? How did they get to be so different from lupus? Are they domestic dogs who have gone feral? Or was there a different isolation process?
Thanks!
PS: I see now they are not only a separate species but a distinct genus. This seems weird to me, they look more like mutts than wolves do, by far. But I note that are important morphological differences too, like a difference in claw construction. I wonder if there is homology at work here?
Edited by Iblis, : AbE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2010 11:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Peg, posted 01-02-2010 6:01 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 293 of 425 (541278)
01-02-2010 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Iblis
01-01-2010 11:46 PM


Re: "Kinds" do exist...
Iblis writes:
PS: I see now they are not only a separate species but a distinct genus. This seems weird to me, they look more like mutts than wolves do, by far. But I note that are important morphological differences too, like a difference in claw construction. I wonder if there is homology at work here?
i just want to say, as i have already a number of times in this discussion, there is no reason to believe that God made only 1 of the dog/wolf kind
he may have made several different varieties of this genus of animal...genesis does not limit itself to any number of 'kinds'
so why are we assuming there was only ever one dog/wolf kind created???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Iblis, posted 01-01-2010 11:46 PM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Briterican, posted 01-02-2010 9:24 AM Peg has replied
 Message 297 by hooah212002, posted 01-02-2010 9:59 AM Peg has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 294 of 425 (541285)
01-02-2010 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by ICANT
01-01-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Kind
ICANT writes:
greyseal writes:
Now you're telling me that dogs and wolves - two DISTINCT kinds - can have hybrid babies, and THOSE babies can have babies, and produce...NEW KINDS?
Yes except I think I refered to the offspring as hybrids.
...
IS IT A WOLF? NO
IS IT A DOG? NO
IS IT A NEW KIND? NO
IT IS HALF WOLF AND HALF DOG. THAT MAKES IT A HYBRID.
If you take these half breeds and breed them to half breeds and continue to do so you can blurr the lines until they almost disappear competely. There will be thousands of hybrids created in the process.
But they will all be a hybrid of a wolf and dog cross.
And the dog and the wolf will still exist.
I'm really, really disappointed with that answer, because it is a complete and total copout.
you tell me that wolves and dogs are distinct kinds, yet they can interbreed.
you also tell me that they'll always be a non-kind animal you call a "hybrid" (something never mentioned in the bible).
you accept animals can change - apparently to quite a large degree although you're unhappy with falabella's and shire horses all being the same "kind" equally as much as you dislike wolves and dogs being the same kind - yet you don't see the problem with calling a chihuahuah (sp?) and a great dane both "dogs" despite the fact there's a real problem with breeding them "naturally".
so you accept no real limits on inter-Kind relationships (i.e. if it happens, it happens), you obviously don't have a problem with animals going extinct (or are you seriously telling me that dinosaurs never existed? I don't care WHEN you think they existed...) despite the fact you said that "there will always be dogs" and "dogs will always make dogs" - both of which are obviously lies from what you've already said you believe in.
let's play a little game:
dogs and wolves interbreed somewhere, and create a viable breeding population of dog-wolf/wolf-dog hybrids which are neither dog nor wolf.
some big McGuffin happens to all the wolves and all the dogs, same as the dinosaurs - boom, no more dogs or wolves.
but magically we still have the hybrids.
you can accept change in a population, so imagine these hybrids change again - some get bigger, some get smaller and bam! you've got something like the great dane and chihuahuah problem.
now, a creationist very much like yourself, but two thousand years later sees this succession of micro-evolutionary occurences and says what?
Step forward now, be brave, what would he say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 8:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2010 12:11 PM greyseal has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 295 of 425 (541286)
01-02-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Coyote
01-01-2010 8:58 PM


Re: Summary
coyote writes:
I think this thread has shown that the concept of "kinds" is a religious one, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to the findings made by science.
Science follows the empirical evidence where it leads, even when it contradicts someone's religious beliefs.
Religious believers must follow their scriptures or other sources of belief even when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary.
Oh I agree, it was just a good opportunity to see how far a creationist can put their foot in their mouth and still claim they don't taste the sole.
"kinds" are entirely religious, and not only that but MUST bow down to the scriptures in any and all cases, even when the answer is nonsensical and self-contradictory (as in the case of ICANT and his inability to understand the difference between hybrids, "micro-evolution" and the change he says he is very much used to a what is, essentially, exactly what science is telling us happens).
the IDiots who would have us all listen to their badly-thought-out sad and pathetic excuses for what passes for "creation science" theories haven't done the first bit of work to make sure any of what they propose to teach even passes the first hurdle of being self-consistent a theory before it gets anywhere near being tested in the field.
not only is it not self-consistent, it is a swiss-cheese escher painting, and suggesting it has any merit whatsoever just sandpapers my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Coyote, posted 01-01-2010 8:58 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 296 of 425 (541294)
01-02-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Peg
01-02-2010 6:01 AM


Re: "Kinds" do exist...
Peg writes:
i just want to say, as i have already a number of times in this discussion, there is no reason to believe that God made only 1 of the dog/wolf kind
I'd take that a step further and say that there is no reason to believe that God made any kinds.
Peg writes:
he may have made several different varieties of this genus of animal...genesis does not limit itself to any number of 'kinds'
If that is the case, it simply causes further ambiguity. It there are "several different varieties of this genus of animal" and these count as different "kinds", then we have moved even further away from any clear cut definition of kinds.
Peg writes:
so why are we assuming there was only ever one dog/wolf kind created???
As pointed out before, I certainly don't make that assumption. But if you wish to presume that god made multiple "dog/wolf" kinds - then it begs the question of why they are separate... what makes them separate? On what basis would you conclude that there was more than 1 dog/wolf kind? And what differentiates one particular "dog/wolf kind" from another "dog/wolf kind"?
To me this whole thing is a non-issue. The Bible doesn't clearly define "kinds" - the word is used in this sense only a handful of times, and yet such great weight is being placed on it. Despite valiant efforts to put any clear definition to the term, there really is no definitive way to say "that's it, that's right, that's what a kind is".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Peg, posted 01-02-2010 6:01 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Peg, posted 01-02-2010 6:23 PM Briterican has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 297 of 425 (541295)
01-02-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Peg
01-02-2010 6:01 AM


Re: "Kinds" do exist...
As far as Genesis and the creation is concerned, that's not where the real problem is. The problem comes in when you guys try and fit them all on the ark.
Different "kinds" of wolves/dogs? Well, the same must be true for ALL animals. How do you fit them all on the ark? How do you dispute the finding in the paper I posted up thread?
1 wolf "kind" and 1 dog "kind"? Ok, then you accept evolution. Now explain how genetics have traced dog origins to wolves, as I posted upthread.
Real, bonafide, scientific studies have been conducted on tracing origins of most animal lineages.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Peg, posted 01-02-2010 6:01 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2010 1:10 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 315 by Peg, posted 01-02-2010 6:33 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 298 of 425 (541296)
01-02-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Rahvin
01-01-2010 11:34 PM


Re: "Kinds" do exist...
So every animal is a kind in and of itself? Pretty big friggin ark they had. Adam must have been a busy guy. Spent his entire 900 years of life just naming animals.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2010 11:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2010 1:28 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 299 of 425 (541302)
01-02-2010 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by greyseal
01-02-2010 8:12 AM


Re: Kind
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
yet you don't see the problem with calling a chihuahuah (sp?) and a great dane both "dogs"
I don't remember calling them both dogs. Did I?
There are over 500 different hybrids that man has created over the past 6,000+ years that is commonly refereed to as dogs. None of them are purebreds.
greyseal writes:
you accept animals can change - apparently to quite a large degree although you're unhappy with falabella's and shire horses all being the same "kind"
I see you looked at my avatar. Those both are hybrids. There was much breeding, cross breeding and inbreeding to get to those extremes. When that picture was taken that was the tallest and shortest living hybrids refereed to as horses.
greyseal writes:
let's play a little game:
I thought that is what you was doing from the beginning.
greyseal writes:
you can accept change in a population, so imagine these hybrids change again - some get bigger, some get smaller and bam! you've got something like the great dane and chihuahuah problem.
So if some 3700 years ago there was a pair of domestic dogs that was on an ark along with a pair of wolves and each of these was the only living survivors of their kind. They replenished the earth with their offspring. Man gets involved and breeds dogs and wolves and produces a wolf dog. Then these wolf dogs produce offspring. At the same time man is breeding dog with dog and producing dogs. The wolf dogs are uncontrollable so man breeds dogs with the wolf dogs getting more dog in the offspring than wolf until he gets and offspring with very little wolf in it which is more controllable such as the German shepherd.
In the meantime we have created thousands of hybrids that have created thousands of hybrids.
greyseal writes:
now, a creationist very much like yourself, but two thousand years later sees this succession of micro-evolutionary occurences and says what?
I would have to make a guess as to what someone would say to your example.
But we don't have to guess what I would say. Because after 3700 years I have just said, we have a lot of hybrids we call dogs. Which in fact have been created from a pair of domestic dogs. With a little wolf bred into the hybrids.
greyseal writes:
"there will always be dogs" and "dogs will always make dogs"
If I said there will always be dogs, I TAKE THAT BACK.
I did say dogs will always produce dogs.
The wild dogs in Africa will always produce wild dogs.
Wild wolves will always produce wild wolves.
If the last dog and wolf cease to exist there will be no dogs or wolves to produce their kind. Just as there are no dinosaurs today as they ceased to exist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by greyseal, posted 01-02-2010 8:12 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by hooah212002, posted 01-02-2010 12:21 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 302 by greyseal, posted 01-02-2010 1:22 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 306 by lyx2no, posted 01-02-2010 2:34 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 327 by jasonlang, posted 01-03-2010 3:11 AM ICANT has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 300 of 425 (541304)
01-02-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by ICANT
01-02-2010 12:11 PM


Re: Kind
Which in fact have been created from a pair of domestic dogs.
Wrong, ICANT. Please see my Message 271. I pointed this out already.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2010 12:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024