Comments on: Carl Sagan – ‘A Glorious Dawn’ ft Stephen Hawking (Symphony of Science)

By: BigDave41UK

BigDave41UK — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:14 +0000

Just.. Amazing.
Just.. Amazing.

By: saturncat00

saturncat00 — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:13 +0000

Wonderful! It …
Wonderful! It brought tears to my eyes. Carl would have loved it– I miss him so much.

By: suprisepunch

suprisepunch — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:13 +0000

this is genious
this is genious

By: akrulla

akrulla — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:13 +0000

Love love love.
Love love love.

By: MonkayMan

MonkayMan — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:13 +0000

November 9, 1934 …
November 9, 1934 December 20, 1996

“He was 62. Sagan died of pneumonia at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, where he had a bone-marrow transplant in April 1995, a center spokeswoman said. The center had identified his disease as myelodysplasia, a form of anemia also known as preleukemia syndrome. ” – CNN

I wish he was still here. we really need more people like him in this world!

By: SPRoubi2020

SPRoubi2020 — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:13 +0000

I wish people like …
I wish people like Carl Sagan were running this planet. People like him are smart and unadulterated and that is what we need now more than ever.

By: rohit91

rohit91 — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:13 +0000

fantastic
fantastic

By: FleetingRelevance

FleetingRelevance — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:13 +0000

Sagan stuck …
Sagan stuck gallantly to what he could know for sure. That’s why the series is still relevant 30 years later.
He speculates on many a mythos, and compares it to what we now know. No leap of faith is required to recognize the beauty in the universe.

By: fbutubeyou

fbutubeyou — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:13 +0000

Listening to Carl …
Listening to Carl Sagan makes me a proud human been and the music makes me melancholic. In his words reveals a deep confidence in our species. I still miss Carl.

By: FleetingRelevance

FleetingRelevance — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:18:13 +0000

@NathanBForrest1776 …
@NathanBForrest1776
Are there things which perhaps you yourself cannot be sure enough of. Because the evidence, or the interpretation of the evidence, lacks the ability to sway you to a confident conclusion.

God is an interpretation of existence. We don’t need supernature. If the supernatural can interact with nature, then is it not much like just another layer of the natural world we know, (eg. gravity) and if so, then why make the distinction, if it’s part of nature.