|
|
|
|
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:42:20 AM |
However, these people ARE ignorant, not just an opinion, these people use every trick in the book to try to debunk science in favour of nothing more than fairy stories, often completely glossing over any real facts, except occasionally to twist a fact to fit their own ideals.
Personally, I don't actually find science and faith to be mutually exclusive.
I consider myself a scientist who has faith.
I believe in evolution, I also believe in a higher being of some sort.
Whether that being is God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster I don't know.
Sometimes I am amazed at the diversity of life on this planet and at times can be so stunned by the way things have adapted to their environment that my tiny, little brain cannot fathom how it happened without a 'guiding hand.'
Maybe that is a failing of mine, or maybe it's not.
I believe that dogmatism, in any direction, is the real failing. Closing ones eyes tightly while chanting "It's not true, it's not true" won't bring scientific or spiritual enlightenment.
One last point and one for which my anti-dogmatism stances fails me, I don't believe in organised religion, the whole 'my God is better than your God' and 'do X in order that you avoid fire and damnation' (and fill the coffers of your church) is a way to control the masses and an excuse for war and obscenities. It's a game I choose not to play. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 2:59:47 AM | I take the point in msg49 but how do you explain why we still have bright white butterflys who stand out and are highly visible,why then have they not all been eaten buy preditors.
These markings are to well designed sort of thing, to be just random chances of evolution.I dont mean designed as such but think you can see where i am coming from on this issue.
Look at all the intricate configurations of relationships between many flowering plants and certain types of bees that are essential for its survival.I am sorry but that fits together to well to be a random chance of evolution. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 3:11:57 AM | This is a very interesting subject with some good, well thought out opinions, just a thought, maybe the white butterfly had a preditor that didnt like white, and so they developed into a white butterfly, from something else, I do know one thing, they like my cabbages.
Just googled cabbage white butterfly, good explaination there! | |
|
cargy
|
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 54 | |
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:05:51 AM | how do you explain why we still have bright white butterflys who stand out and are highly visible
The poster in message 53 has already identified one of the reasons, but it is worthy of note that the white is an extremely prolific butterfly, and produces far more offspring than predators can consume. Arguably that hyper-fertility is merely another adaption to environment.
No one denies symbiosis between certain animals and plants, but this is nearly always because the link is beneficial to both in survival terms.
In fact, it is not essential for an insect to pollinate another plant... the wind can do that. but it is obvious that attracting an insect is far less hit and miss than reliance on air movement. So a plant that can attract an insect to do so has enhanced its survival prospects considerably. From the bees perspective it is attracted to the flower by the nectar which provides sustenance and therefore benefits its survival.
These markings are to well designed sort of thing, to be just random chances of evolution.I dont mean designed as such but think you can see where i am coming from on this issue
No, I don't see where you are coming from. Over the course of this thread you have made a number of assertions that do not follow logic, and avoided any questions relating to them.
Perhaps you will now reciprocate by answering some of my questions:
1. In your first post you say "Every thing we see,hear,smell etc has to of been created as it is by some creative power wether it is a god or what ever"
Why does it "have" to have been "created"?
2. In your next contribution you say "I think it is totally impossible for life to have started from nothing,it just does not make any sense "
This prompts 2 questions:
a. Why do you assert life coming from nothing (and I assume by nothing you actually mean random elements) is an impossibility?
b. Why do you believe it "has" to make sense?
3. In your next post, you say "I think evolution has sort of been disproved"
I must have missed that research! So please enlighten me, what verifiable evidence do you have that categorically disproves evolution?
4. In your next post you assert "There is no way an animal can evolve with out the introduction of foriegn genes "
As this contradicts known science, please furnish the evidence and research that you used to draw this conclusion.
5. You then go on to ask the following: "Look at bumble bees who have relationships with certain plants.If those plants dye out then the bees dye out and vise versa.That surely did not just happen from random evolution now did it?"
Are you asking us or telling us? Why couldn't it just happen by itself?
6. In the next post, you assail us with "Is evolution not creationism that has a longer duration"
Again, are you asking us, or telling us? Creationism has the fundamental underlying principle that there must be a higher being/intelligence at work (you have already told us this). The fundamental principle behind Evolution says that it's all completely random, with no intelligent design. So, in answer to your question... no, they aren't the same thing at all.
I know you are keen to enlighten us all, and I for one look forward to the answers. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:14:03 AM | Just as an aside here..if anyone is *really* interested in a darwin VS anti-darwin argument... look at the flagellum.
Irreducible complexity... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Thats a link to a reasonably well thought out pro-darwin flagellum argument.
But only look at it if you are *really* interested...because unless you are a biochemist/biologist... It can be like wading through treacle! It is to me and I am interested in it!!
 | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:15:10 AM |
I don't actually find science and faith to be mutually exclusive.
I completely fail to understand this stance. Science requires empirical evidence. Faith requires that you ignore all impirical evidence. Bit of a clash to my way of thinking.
Whether that being is God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster I don't know.
It might just as well be the flying spaghetti monster. That's the whole POINT of pastafarianism.
Sometimes I am amazed at the diversity of life on this planet and at times can be so stunned by the way things have adapted to their environment that my tiny, little brain cannot fathom how it happened without a 'guiding hand.'
I too am amazed at the universe. I too cannot fathom it. But my inability to fathom it's origins is not a justification for beleiving in something made up by early humans to explain things they couldn't grasp.
Just look at the 1920s cargo cults, strong evidence that aboriginal societies will worship anything which appears wonderous but not understandable.
I believe that dogmatism, in any direction, is the real failing. Closing ones eyes tightly while chanting "It's not true, it's not true" won't bring scientific or spiritual enlightenment.
I agree. But until I see one single piece of evidence which points to a supreme being, creator or designer, I won't start beleiving in one.
You may as well come up with any ludicrous idea you can think of and beleive in that, there's no more or less evidence for it than there is for a 'god'
Having an open mind does not have to include beleiving in something just becuase you were taught to, either in a structured or non structured way.
If you'd never heard of god and I came to you now and tried to make you beleive in one, you'd think I was mad. You only beleive in it because you're used to it in your life from so many sources. | |
|
cargy
|
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 57 | |
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:16:32 AM | It is to me and I am interested in it
Yeah, but you only got started on it cos you thought it was flagellation!!
| |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:18:49 AM |
Yeah, but you only got started on it cos you thought it was flagellation!!
 flagellation was a featured article on humbugs.com.  | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:40:09 AM | Being working class and therefore having a lower IQ than my middle/upper class counterparts apperently, i shall wait until i evolve before i pass comment .......the times, they are a changin' !!
 | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:58:38 AM | IAMBULLDOG said:
For example,the Peacock butterfly for instance.They claim has developed eye patterns on its wings to deter preditors.Well that sounds very plausable indeed but this would suggest that the butterfly has a higher inteligence then ourselves.If the butterfly devloped eye patterns on its wings to speciffically deter preditors then there must of been a thought pattern some where along the lines over how ever long it took for it to evlove in order for it do so.
Think about it,and whats more if this was such a successfull means of avoiding preditors then why havent all butterflys developed these patterns.
Your question of why all butterflies don't adopt the wing pattern method of deterring predation is an interesting one. My guess would be that the different species of butterfly have originated and diversified from a common ancestor and evolved varied defensive mechanisms in response to predation.
The pattern of the peacock butterfly's wings cannot be the result of intelligence on its part - after all, the insect hardly has a conscious choice in the matter. A more likely explanation is that its wings appear the way they do because it is a successful look, and has been selected for its survival value.
I can remember as a child, going out and catching butterflies. Dunno why. I didn't mount them for display or anything. It was pre-computer game age in the 1960's and "catchin' butters" was a common pastime among children. Maybe I was satisfying some ancient inbred hunting instinct.
Anyway, the white species of butterfly always seemed much more numerous and easier to catch than the darker, more vividly coloured species like the Red Admiral and the Peacock, which kids referred to as "frenchies" for some reason. I remember there was an additional frisson of excitement in having "caught a frenchie" as we used to say. They were prettier and more highly prized than the whites.
Now I'm just guessing here, but maybe the white butterfly species deal with predation and achieves survival by breeding in greater numbers. A different solution to the same problem.
Note: Jus' read your post No.54 cargy, after writing this. Snap! | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 3:55:57 PM | Comments on msg54 will try and to reflect on the message as much as time warrents.It is friday night and I am feeling a bit Kaput and just been on the lash.
Right then yes there are plants that are totally reliant on Bumble bees take Blue Berries.These can only be what is called buz pollinated by Bumble bees there is no other creature that has the mechanism to do so.In canada they had a pest that was damaging the forests so they blitzed every where with insectaside,this had a knock on effect and consiquently wiped out all the bees in that entire area which was next to miles and miles of blue berry plantations and gues what? NO BLUEBERRIES
And there is another plant called snapdraggon and bumble bees are the only creatures that can open the flowers to pollinate them. There are many many more examples of this. I REST MY CASE ON THAT ONE. CHECK ON GOOGLE YOU WILL SEE.
So you see there is an unrefuteable element of design here some how.It fits like a jigsaw
Now asking or telling, well a bit of both really ha ha
PHD Tom Snyder did an intresting article on the evolution myth sure that could be on google aswell but havent got the time to check it out.
I only asumed life started from nothing if there was a begining to life.Reading some of the intresting points made by your self and others I am sort of changing my opinions a little.
But here is a thought what if there never was begining? what if there has always been life and it was never created in the first place.No begining No ending
And yes you do need to introduce foriegn genes for an animal to change its shape over time.Mutations realy only govern mas and density of the cells they devide from.They cant actully become different as per say even over an expanse of millions of years they will still resemble the origonal.Regardles of what you may of seen on the cinema screne.There are exceptions to mutations changing slightly and that is known as throwbacks from dormant foriegn genes that where introduced to the species generations before.
Take dogs for instance.Lets say a GSD now over millions of years it will remain a GSD untill you add foriegn genes lets say by crossing it with a Labrador or something.Then you end up with a dog that resembles both of them.Prodominantly it will mostly resemble the mother but will also have characteristics of the father.Now lets just say in a thousand years time some one descovers the bones they might think the changes where down to evolution when quite clearly they are not.
Its the same in the equine world aswell,the only differences that have occured through out millenia are those caused by cross breeding and introducing foriegn genes look at us humans aswell.Cross breeding and producing different races of people.
I might of missed some points out but I will try and come back to them at some point. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:08:31 PM | | I can't say this is something I've ever looked at in any detail but my understanding is that primates have less chromosomes than humans. It's impossible for something to evolve into a species with more chromosomes hence the reason why there is something referred to as the 'missing link'. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:36:18 PM | Not true - most monkey species and many other species have more than humans.
If I remember correctly even potatoes have more chromosomes than humans. Kinda shows here!
Go evolution - don't think in a few thousands of years for change to occur think millions of years. It is hard.
Who designed the designers I wonder - oh yes always there! So life can come from nowhere when belief is involved but not evolution. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:46:43 PM |
this. I REST MY CASE ON THAT ONE. CHECK ON GOOGLE YOU WILL SEE.
So you see there is an unrefuteable element of design here some how.It fits like a jigsaw
It is not irrefutable. It looks to you like it has been 'designed'. It doesn't look that way to scientists. it is human nature to place 'design/reason/a human side' on things.
PHD Tom Snyder did an interesting article on the evolution myth sure that could be on google aswell but havent got the time to check it out.
I only asumed life started from nothing if there was a begining to life.Reading some of the intresting points made by your self and others I am sort of changing my opinions a little.
Evolution is a theory, not a set of stories and myths like religion. Evolution also does not deal with how life started, but with how it changes. Another popular misunderstanding a lot of people have aboot it.
Here is part 23 of that popular utube series which shows how daft a lot of the creationist/ID arguments are, and how they don't understand what evolution explains or is.
]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg&feature=related
It shows the great film expelled, which should be shown to all as to how to stack up an arguments on a house of cards:D | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:51:49 PM | | The link between the blueberries and the bees evolves over time.Initially, they would not be dependent on each other. However, for some reason, it was advantageous for the blueberry plants to pollinate via the bees, and therefore, over time, the plants most accomodating to the bees would have reproduced more succesfully. Therefore, the genes of those plants would be passed on to the next generation. eventually, the plants would evolve to a situation where only the bees could open them. Subsequently, when the bees were wiped out, the plants had no method of reproducing and so died out. The dependence on each other is not evidence against evolution, but is in fact evidence for evolution. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/23/2008 5:22:39 PM | let's consider the ... evolution of the grey squirrel but how it's introduction to the UK has meant that indigenous red squirrels are slowly but surely becoming extinct..that is something that is happening in the here and now and is a readily available circumstance for all to witness..
No we are being over run with black squirrels..
..it's all so confusing but it seems the lesson to be learnt is that the survival of the fittest seems to be a true adage.. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/24/2008 1:55:58 AM | Before they started writing and recording history, they didn't record their history, they handed it down by word of mouth. Therefore, there's nothing TO find.
But hieroglyph writing appeared fully developed, complex in form and mature in construction ... surely if writing"evolved" we would have found examples of early forms , we would be able to trace its development ... writing does not "just appear", does it... ?
Given that they live in the same world, it's quite likely they'd come up with similar answers
So the maya in Central America, the inca in Peru , and the midle east (sumerians?) all have a "handed down" legend of a tall white man , in robes with a beard who taught them the basis of civilisation in their ancient past .. pretty specific parallels, given that there was no contact between the old and new world until the 15th century .... convergence? | |
|
cargy
|
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 68 | |
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/24/2008 3:56:24 AM | MSG 61: I'm a bit disappointed you haven't even attempted to respond to the questions I put to you in MSG54. I think we can excuse it given the inebriated state you claimed, but I'm sure you'll have no problem in addressing them now you are sober!
As another poster has pointed out; the assumption that the bees and the flowers on which you "rest your case" on have always been co-dependant is flawed. As a comparison, you may wish to imagine meeting a married couple for the first time, and then assuming that because they are now live together in cooperation, they must have been born that way!
I see you're still insisting foreign genes are necessary for mutation purposes. This is not the case, although in your own way you are trying to raise a valid point which I touched on in MSG43 where I said " I believe they have adapted rather than evolved. No matter what adaptions have occurred, they remain sparrows!"
The fact that you are "Googling" stuff is good, but I would like to offer a small suggestion: Do Google the arguments put forth by both sides. If one only looks at the stuff one wants to hear, then you are unlikely to become aware of evidence contradicting it!
I might of missed some points out but I will try and come back to them at some point
That's absolutely fine by me, because I am looking forward to reading your answers to the questions I put to you in order to help me understand your postition. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/24/2008 7:31:19 AM | if it was not for a metiore we wiould not be here today it brought life on this planet so somethingout there has also got life Jim T Kirk BUT NOT HAS WE KNOW IT .
but why worry we find out sometime but we must keep our eyes peeled because we bound to be hit sometime by another big chunck of rock
here endth another lesson by raasputing i just keep  | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/26/2008 8:35:54 PM | I just want to address the bluberry argument. Bumblebees are not the only species that can polinate the blueberry vine. Many insects can do the work including black flys and the European honey bee. In fact the European honey bee does the best job, and that is why blueberry farmers import honey bees every spring for polination. But the European honey bee is not native to Canada, and blueberries are. The fact that nature fits so well together does not disprove evolution, it actually makes a stronger case for it. But the natural enviroment is not perfect, if it were species numbers would be a constant with reproduction being perfectly timed with death. Now some species like the shark developed to the top of it's enviroment hundreds of thousands of years ago and has not needed to evolve since then. But you can look at a species like staph infection, because of the drugs humans introduced into their enviroment, they have eolved to become a new drug resistent strain of staph infection. The problem is no matter how much evidence you present to creationist and IDers they refuse to believe any of it, but continue to use backwards logic, outright lies, and ignorant misconceptions.
I strongly believe in evolution, but if someone could comeup with a stronger argument for something else, I would have no problem adjusting my ideas on the subject. Creationists and IDers refuse to accept any facts that go against their fantacy.
Now to talk about the rediculousness of the South American cultures poping up complete. This is completely false. All natives of North and South America came from Asia on an ice bidge during the last ice age. The people further south came first with the Inuit being the last people to come over from Asia.
As for their artwork first appearing at it's apex is another outright lie or dillusion. The art of South American natives has a very strong timeline showing different development.
And as for different people of the world all coming up with the same religion. What the hell are you smoking. About the only thing that most anient religions have in common is worshiping the sun, and this is pretty easy to inderstand. The sun provides heat, it ends the darkness of night, it makes the plants grow. Some ancient civilizatons also developed astronomy, this is also understandable since learning seasons can be very important since it will tell them when to harvest cops, when huting will be good, when to travel, what the tides will do. But the beliefe in one god was pretty much started by Judaism, which continued to Chritianity, and then to Muslims, but these three religions all started within 500 miles of each other.
As far as pyramids being built in two places with no connection, the answear is quite simple. If you are an ancient civilization with little knowledge of engineering and you wish to build a massive structure, a pyramid is the most stable shape to choose, although both styles are completely different, with the Egyptions making flat surfaces and the South Americans making their stepped pyramids.
I also doubt that God was originally thought of as white. If you looked at where Judaism and Christianity started, and the people that live there now, I would bet that they thought God was brown. I also have serious doubts that Jesus was white, I'm thinking he would have been brown as well. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:40:22 AM | iambulldog
If trees evolved from algea in the sea, then why is algea in the sea still algea in the sea.
Because that is not the way evoltion works. Think about it like this, there are billions of living algae at the moment. If some of these algae get washed into a lagoon that dries up periodically, where only the algae that are resistant to dry conditions can survive, they would evolve into plants that do are capable of living on the land, but all of the rest of the algae in the oceons would be untouched and would go on as normal.
Are they saying then that algea is inteligent?
No.
So if every thing evolved from a single celled algea then why so many millions of different species of trees,plant and grasses?
Because each species fills a difrent ecological nich. Think about like a tool kit where you have spaners, screw drivers, hammers, ect. Each one dose something differant.
We only have about seven different types of climate on this earth so why so many different species?
Twi things here, we have thousands of very specific differant climates and as a result we have thosands of very specific difrent types of life forms. Also, climate is not the only factor in species evolution, competion with other species pays a major role. As dose competion with prey and predators.
So there are many species because they are competing each other to survive.
If we evolved from chimps then why are chimps still chimps?
We did not evolve from chimps, we evolved from the same ancestor as they did. They are our evolutionary cousins, not our evolutionary grandfathers. why they are still around is because it is not necicery for one species to die of for another to be born. Evolution is a tree, not a lader.
In fact I think it is totally impossible for life to have started from nothing,it just does not make any sense no matter which way you look at it.
I also do not belive life started from nothing. I belive that life started from simple chemical ibnteractions, that became more complex and created prions and RNA and eventaly cells.
I think evolution has sort of been disproved.In the fact that no missing link between man and ape has ever been found any where on earth.
There is no such thing as a missing link. Evolution is like a tree, not a chain. Every single fosil just supports evolution, because not one of them is out of place. They always go from the simplest life forms the longest time ago to the most complex lifeforms later on. In a way you kind think of every person as a missing link. Your parents are the link between you and your grandparents. You are not identical to your parents nor they to thiers and so it is with all life.
Very few life forms are ever preserved, so we do not ahve an unbroken familly tree all the way back the start, but we do have enough information to be able to build a bassic acount of the evoultionary tree.
The missing link ,that I think Darwin was supposed to have found was proven to be bones off three completly different species with DNA testing
I do not have any clue of what you are talking about here. I think you may be very mistaken on this one. Darwin NEVER once mentioned a missing link, nor was he a fosil hunter.
They found a couple of skelitons which looked almost the same and said this must of evolved from this blah blah blah.
Again I do not know what you are talking of and think you may be very mistaken here. Darwin was the first person to prove the existance of Evolution, there may have been similar theories before hand, but Darwin was the one who actually did the research and proved it.
What they found was the same creature of different stages of its life one was an adult the other was a youngster.I think they were marmaset monkeys and DNA has proven them to be of exactly the same species.
Really? I need to see evidence of that, otherwise I can not take it as anything other than hearsay and conjecture. It would be extreamly dificult to rule out contamination of the samples if they were 4oo years old. Aditionally we know enough about the biology of these kinds of animals that we can tell appart animals of difrent life stages from thier bones without haviung to test them with DNA because the bones change in a sety way as they age, cartilage is replaced by bone and bone wears down in a way that can be predicted so we can tell the life stage of an animal pretty well by a single bone. (i.e, DNA testing would have been pointless because any expert would be able to look at the bones and say, yup, they are the same species at difrent ages.)
There is no way an animal can evolve with out the introduction of foriegn genes that is why animals become extinct when the local climate changes,simply because they cannot evolve.
Not true. There are several mechanisms by which genes change.
Firstly there is sex. Sex recombines genes in new ways so that there is a diferance between the child and the parent.
Secondly there is mutation. When a new life is created, the genes can mutate as a reult of severale difrent factors. They could be copied down wrong, or a foriegn chemical or some stray radiation can cause the genes to change. genes can also migrate, they can break of during copying and reconect at difrent places to create new genes.
The majority of mutations are harmless. EVERY single person in the world has multiple mutations that do not do them any harm most of the time. Ocasionally a mutation is harmful, but this generally is weeded out by natural selection, also there are ocasionally mutations that are an advantage and these are increased by natural selection. The more complex the life forms, the more likely they are to have mutations that are a disadvantage, which is why simple life forms change faster than more complex ones.
Look at bumble bees who have relationships with certain plants.If those plants dye out then the bees dye out and vise versa.That surely did not just happen from random evolution now did it?
Yes it did. It is one of the best examples of natural selection you can point to infact.
Originally, the ansestors of the plant and bee did not depend on each other, but could fertailse and be fertalised by multiple species. Both species had individuals that were better at exploiting the resources of each other, and these indaviduals had a higher surviaval rating and outlasted thier competitors untill all of the species became completely dependant.
 | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:28:11 AM | | every now and again nature takes a leap and you get a variation or improvement its not just evolusion theres devolution also if 2 fish produce a variation & that gets passed on to its kids why would the old fish disapear ? remember that plant life produced our atmosphire in the 1st place that was a great evolutinary step in nature then air breathing species evolved thats evolution where theres a gap in nature or an oportunity life will evolve to fill it take the dinasaurs when 98 % of all life was wiped out the remaining 2 % evolved to fill it ! mas extingtions acount for alot of evoluntion !! | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:37:26 AM | Where did we come from?
Dunno but I reckon its got something to do with them upstairs...
...and I don't mean God. | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/29/2008 7:00:35 AM | | good old aeno acids and bacteria and good old heat ect for mixing them uo in the right way and then thanks adam for getting eve drunk so he could have his wicked way with her | |
|
| EVOLUTION THEORY
Posted: 5/31/2008 8:28:23 PM | | Once upon a time ..I had a fabulously extraordinarily visual experience and it was being privviyto a pair of cabbage whites tripping the light fandango in the spectacular light of a ray of sunshine refclected off of a gigantic granite interface...rock hard interminable reality that lived/has always been there before I became able to appreciate the beauty of shafts of light reflected in the striations imposed upon my visualness...I could try and be more articulate and sellf-explanatory ...but seriously, you' ve not lived till you've witnessed flutter-byes create unforgettable images in your mind of thier romance dance.. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
