The Da Vinci Code

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:01 pm

c hack wrote:
tviyh wrote:as a "linguist" he thoroughly discredits himself by including the following sentence in the footnote on the first page:

I just wish one of them was me.

I'm no linguist myself (J$ back me up/discredit me here), but it looks like he's using the passive tense, which is a big no-no, prolly the biggest one from Strunk & White. Of course, you took it out of context. If he was like:

"One of them was smart, one of them was good-looking, and one of them was strong. I just wish one of them was me."

Then that would be perfectly fine, cause it fits stylistically.

As for was vs. were, I've never been able to figure out which one goes where.

Yeah. The guy's a linguist, not an English major. Besides, errors on his part don't discredit his argument.

j$ · Post by j$ » Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:31 am

Yes, it should be 'I just wish that I was one of them.'

My professors would be so pleased to see those classes didn't go to waste

j$

j$ · Post by j$ » Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:52 am

Just for all you fans of this book ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 280383.stm

j$

Dan Wrekenhaus 2 · Post by **Dan Wrekenhaus 2** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:32 pm

The Sober Irishman wrote:Religion is, and always has been, man's attempt to rationalize and explain natural phenomenon he cannot understand. Every religion has a creation story (most are strikingly similar to the Christian story), every religion has stories that explain natural phenomenon (the Christian rainbow story, the Greek echo story, the Native American wind story), and every religion has an afterlife story (most religions are pretty uniform on this one - good people go to a good place, bad people go to a bad place, etc.).

The only difference between this and what you might believe is the involvement of a God. If you believe in a Darwin style evolution, you are subscribing to a particular set of beliefs that provide a reason for being here, and method of getting here. I don't understand why that is seen to be such a far cry from a "religion."

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:44 pm

The defining characteristic of a religion is not the ability to provide an explanation for the existence of life.

Kapitano · Post by **Kapitano** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:19 pm

RockAndRollBot wrote:If you believe in a Darwin style evolution, you are subscribing to a particular set of beliefs that provide a reason for being here, and method of getting here. I don't understand why that is seen to be such a far cry from a "religion."

Then you don't grasp the concept of 'evidence'.

Dan Wrekenhaus 2 · Post by **Dan Wrekenhaus 2** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:03 am

The defining characteristic of a religion is not the ability to provide an explanation for the existence of life.

I would assume that varies between one person and the next, but anyway, what is it then?

Then you don't grasp the concept of 'evidence'.

School me, then. Explain the concept and how it relates to what I said. Or is this how discussions are done here? One ends with a cutting and/or unsupported statement, and I am put in my place...

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:18 am

RockAndRollBot wrote:
Then you don't grasp the concept of 'evidence'.
School me, then. Explain the concept and how it relates to what I said. Or is this how discussions are done here? One ends with a cutting and/or unsupported statement, and I am put in my place...

Understanding Darwin doesn't require 'faith'.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:22 am

RockAndRollBot wrote:
Then you don't grasp the concept of 'evidence'.
School me, then. Explain the concept and how it relates to what I said. Or is this how discussions are done here? One ends with a cutting and/or unsupported statement, and I am put in my place...

Yeah, that's basically how it goes around here. To expand on what Kapitano was saying, religion is based on faith, which is belief that does not rely on evidence. On the other hand the theory of evolution springs from the scientific method, the most important foundation of which is physical evidence. So the concept of 'evidence' separates the two theories. This is not a small gap. I would argue that this difference make the two theories polar opposites.

Now, back to whatever it was people were talking about.

EDIT: Jinx!

bz£ · Post by **bz£** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:43 am

Puce wrote:Now, back to whatever it was people were talking about.

We sure weren't talking about this. Is there some mod available for PHPBB that makes the dates associated with each post show up really really big? Or maybe in some flashy colors? Oh, I know: 3-d-bb, where posts that are really far away (in time) also appear really far away (in space) by using font sizes which are proportional to topic recentness. Someone should code that.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:43 am

RockAndRollBot wrote:I would assume that varies between one person and the next, but anyway, what is it then?

A moral code handed down from a being on a higher plane of existance? A sacred book? A mythology designed to be taken on faith? A set of rituals designed to alter the path that one's soul takes after one dies?

One of those probably. Definitely not any characteristic that classifies the theory of evolution as a religion. It's not, regardless of how much variety exists between people's views of what the word means.

Dan Wrekenhaus 2 · Post by **Dan Wrekenhaus 2** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:05 pm

religion is based on faith, which is belief that does not rely on evidence. On the other hand the theory of evolution springs from the scientific method, the most important foundation of which is physical evidence. So the concept of 'evidence' separates the two theories. This is not a small gap. I would argue that this difference make the two theories polar opposites.

We're all working off of the same evidence here. If you give 3 accountants the same box of receipts, you will get 3 different tax returns. From what I've read so far on the subject, it would take a lot more faith for me to believe in darwinian evolution than creation. There are plenty of resources that take the same evidence and disprove evolution and/or help confirm creation.

Now, back to whatever it was people were talking about.

We sure weren't talking about this. Is there some mod available for PHPBB that makes the dates associated with each post show up really really big? Or maybe in some flashy colors? Oh, I know: 3-d-bb, where posts that are really far away (in time) also appear really far away (in space) by using font sizes which are proportional to topic recentness. Someone should code that.

If you don't want to talk about it, why respond? It would be less of a waste of your time to ignore the post than to respond, and complain about responding...

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:41 pm

RockAndRollBot wrote:... If you give 3 accountants the same box of receipts, you will get 3 different tax returns.

-that means at least 2 of them suck. I hope mine isn't one of them...

RockAndRollBot wrote:From what I've read so far on the subject, it would take a lot more faith for me to believe in darwinian evolution than creation.

To use a phrase like that makes me want to ask you, "What have you read on the subject?" The Bible? Wikipedia? How about Angels & Demons...I'm reading that one, I think they're going to blow this question wide open sometime before the end of the book.

The statement doesn't carry much weight with qualifying it.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:30 pm

RockAndRollBot wrote:
religion is based on faith, which is belief that does not rely on evidence. On the other hand the theory of evolution springs from the scientific method, the most important foundation of which is physical evidence. So the concept of 'evidence' separates the two theories. This is not a small gap. I would argue that this difference make the two theories polar opposites.
We're all working off of the same evidence here. If you give 3 accountants the same box of receipts, you will get 3 different tax returns. From what I've read so far on the subject, it would take a lot more faith for me to believe in darwinian evolution than creation. There are plenty of resources that take the same evidence and disprove evolution and/or help confirm creation.

It sounds like you think there is a logical flaw in the theory of evolution, or that it is a far fetched idea. In that case it would certainly take a leap of faith to believe in it, so from your perspective it makes sense that you see a similarity between religion and evolution. However, I (and most people that I know) have never heard any logically sound argument against Darwinism, so I believe in it without faith. For a lot of people this absence of faith makes evolution the exact opposite of religion.

However, I am interested in hearing your arguments against evolution. If they are sound it'll give me a chance to re-evaluate my beliefs and make sure I'm not blindly following what I've been taught; if however your arguments are full of holes it will strengthen my existing beliefs.

Without further ado, the Evolution vs. Creationism thread!

Dan Wrekenhaus 2 · Post by **Dan Wrekenhaus 2** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:50 pm

I am curious, since I haven't read Dan Brown, it sounds like the books are being taken as non-fiction in a sense. Is this supposed to be the case? I am being sincere here. Like Daniel Quinn for example, uses the fiction arena to deliver ideas that are non-fiction based. Similar thing here?

thehipcola · Post by **thehipcola** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:36 pm

kinda. He throws enough pseudo-fact* in to make it all plausible, especially if you happen to not be a history/culture/religious symbol specialist. That's why he sells so well.

But as has been pointed out in other threads, people who have taken actual degrees, or have researched any of these topics, understandably get riled when people who have only read these novels start spouting off like they know something to be fact. I'm sure it happens alot now that he is such a huge name.

that said, both of his books are pretty good page-turners...

*I call it pseudo-fact because I don't know enough about any of it to know where his line between truth and stretched truth/outright lie is in most cases...

NeilThrun · Post by **NeilThrun** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:02 pm

Anyone else not read this book because it's too main stream? But seriously everyone seems to have read it, everyone. Especially people I don't want to have to about it at work/school/shindigs/etc. Everyone has there own opinion on the book and wants to sound profound about it. It has just seemed alot easier to me to have not read it, so that everytime someone goes, "Hey what do you think about BLAH BLAH BLAH in the Da Vinci Code", I can say, "Oh I havn't read it".

Still, whats the general opinion on this, as an atheist will I derive pleasure from it? Or will I just be wading through it saying "Who cares if the Virgin Mary was married, or if the holy grail exists?". I'm sure that statement has gone to show how little I know of the books plot. So please enlighten me from an objective view point.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:38 pm

as an atheist? i thought jesus was going to save you.

anyways, the reason i didn't read this is my mom. she read the book, loved it, wouldn't shut up about it for months. if you mentioned one thing that made her think about the da vinci code (which was everything) she would start a one way conversation about the book that lasted for 15 minutes. she's finally let it go. if i read it and she finds out, it'll start that all over again. i don't want that.

NeilThrun · Post by **NeilThrun** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:51 pm

fodroy wrote:anyways, the reason i didn't read this is my mom. she read the book, loved it, wouldn't shut up about it for months. if you mentioned one thing that made her think about the da vinci code (which was everything) she would start a one way conversation about the book that lasted for 15 minutes. she's finally let it go. if i read it and she finds out, it'll start that all over again. i don't want that.

BINGO. My feelings exactly.

Kamakura · Post by **Kamakura** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:23 pm

fodroy wrote:If i read it and she finds out, it'll start that all over again. I don't want that.

Read the book and don't tell your Mom; simple... Then when she starts up, you'll be able to understand her rant, and give a 'knowing' look. This can be hightly entertaining too.

It's a great read. Honestly. Just take it with a pinch of salt.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:29 pm

NeilThrun wrote:
fodroy wrote:anyways, the reason i didn't read this is my mom. she read the book, loved it, wouldn't shut up about it for months. if you mentioned one thing that made her think about the da vinci code (which was everything) she would start a one way conversation about the book that lasted for 15 minutes. she's finally let it go. if i read it and she finds out, it'll start that all over again. i don't want that.
BINGO. My feelings exactly.

Dude, you are spending WAAAAAAAAY too much time with fodroy's mom.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:15 pm

erikb wrote:
NeilThrun wrote:
fodroy wrote:anyways, the reason i didn't read this is my mom. she read the book, loved it, wouldn't shut up about it for months. if you mentioned one thing that made her think about the da vinci code (which was everything) she would start a one way conversation about the book that lasted for 15 minutes. she's finally let it go. if i read it and she finds out, it'll start that all over again. i don't want that.
BINGO. My feelings exactly.
Dude, you are spending WAAAAAAAAY too much time with fodroy's mom.

yeah! what are you doing with my mom, neil?

The Da Vinci Code

Re: The Da Vinci Code

Re: The Da Vinci Code