Author Topic: The Da Vinci Code  (Read 23487 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2006, 02:44:50 AM »
You're taking things out of context.  He didn't say "simply thinking about sinning is a sin."  His comments were limited to fantasizing about sex with someone you're not married to. 
 
Sure it's "repression" to not fantasize about sex with someone who isn't your wife.  So what.  That's a good thing.  You can fantasize about your wife all day long and sleep with her seven days a week (if she can keep up).  Sex is God's gift to married people.   

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #51 on: May 15, 2006, 02:57:03 AM »
Sure it's "repression" to not fantasize about sex with someone who isn't your wife.  So what.  That's a good thing.  You can fantasize about your wife all day long and sleep with her seven days a week (if she can keep up).  Sex is God's gift to married people.   


Back to my initial point. Humans aren't meant to do that. Humans aren't naturally monogamous animals. They were meant to have multiple mates. It's not natural to supress your sexuality and it results in side effects(Like pedophilia).


Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #52 on: May 15, 2006, 06:07:07 AM »
Quote from: Johnny Apollo
Back to my initial point. Humans aren't meant to do that. Humans aren't naturally monogamous animals. They were meant to have multiple mates. It's not natural to supress your sexuality and it results in side effects(Like pedophilia).

JA, do you have something more concrete than just a blanken statement that "humans aren't naturally monogamous animals"?  this sounds more like a justification of a lifestyle than it does fact.   :-\

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #53 on: May 15, 2006, 08:28:24 AM »
just read this article from noted researcher George Barna...  i'm seriously not worried about all the hoopla about this movie.  it will sell lots of tickets for sure, but i'm not certain that their will be a Star Wars or Lord of The Rings type following. 

Da Vinci Code Confirms Rather Than Changes People’s Religious Views
 
May 15, 2006


(Ventura, CA) – Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code , has sold more copies than any other fictional work in U.S. history. With the release of the movie adaptation on May 19, interest in this controversial tale has risen substantially.

A new nationwide survey by The Barna Group says that the book has impacted millions of lives – but perhaps not in the way that many Christians have imagined.

Broad Reach

According to the Barna research, The Da Vinci Code  has been read “cover to cover” by roughly 45 million adults in the U.S. – that’s one out of every five adults (20%). That makes it the most widely read book with a spiritual theme, other than the Bible, to have penetrated American homes.

The audience profile of the book is intriguing. Despite critical comments and warnings from the Catholic hierarchy, American Catholics are more likely than Protestants to have read it (24% versus 15%, respectively). Among Protestants, those associated with a mainline church are almost three times more likely than those associated with non-mainline Protestant congregations to have read the book. Upscale individuals – i.e., those with a college degree and whose household income exceeds $60,000 – are nearly four times more likely to have read the book than are “downscale” people (i.e., those without a college degree and whose household income is $30,000 or less).

Perceived Value of the Content

Among the adults who have read the entire book, one out of every four (24%) said the book was either “extremely,” “very,” or “somewhat” helpful in relation to their “personal spiritual growth or understanding.” That translates to about 11 million adults who consider The Da Vinci Code  to have been a helpful spiritual document.

To place that figure in context, the Barna study revealed that another recently published popular novel about Jesus Christ – Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt , written by Anne Rice – was deemed to be spiritually helpful by 72% of its readers – three times the proportion who lauded Dan Brown’s book.

Changing People’s Beliefs

The study also explored whether or not the book caused people to change some of their religious beliefs. Among the 45 million who have read The Da Vinci Code , only 5% - which represents about two million adults – said that they changed any of the beliefs or religious perspectives because of the book’s content.

“Before reading The Da Vinci Code  people had a full complement of beliefs already in place, some firmly held and others loosely held,” explained George Barna, the author of numerous books about faith and culture. “Upon reading the book, many people encountered information that confirmed what they already believed. Many readers found information that served to connect some of their beliefs in new ways. But few people changed their pre-existing beliefs because of what they read in the novel. And even fewer people approached the book with a truly open mind regarding the controversial matters in question, and emerged with a new theological perspective. The book generates controversy and discussions, but it has not revolutionized the way that Americans think about Jesus, the Church or the Bible.”

“On the other hand,” the researcher continued, “any book that alters one or more theological views among two million people is not to be dismissed lightly. That’s more people than will change any of their beliefs as a result of exposure to the teaching offered at all of the nation’s Christian churches combined during a typical week.”

The people most likely to have altered their religious views in response to the book’s content were Hispanics (17% of those who read the book), women (three times more likely than male readers to do so), and liberals (twice as likely as conservatives). Upscale adults were also much more likely than downscale individuals to shift their thinking based on the novel.

The Movie: A Blockbuster?

Industry observers expect the movie to be a hit. But how big of a hit is it likely to be? And what degree of influence is the movie likely to have?

The Barna study indicates that more than 30 million adults are likely to pay for a ticket to see the film – unless the early buzz regarding the film is negative. The company estimates that the movie is poised to break the $300 million box office barrier, based on the current level and intensity of interest expressed by adults. Reaching that plateau would place the movie among the top 20 movies of all-time based upon domestic box office gross revenue.

The statistics reveal that two out of every three people who are likely to see the movie have already read the book. That means more than 10 million adults who have not yet read the book are likely to journey to a theater to see the film.

Barna noted that if the movie has a similar level of influence on movie-goers as the book has had on adult readers, then about a half-million adults could be expected to change one or more of their religious beliefs based upon the movie’s content. The most significant impact, he noted, could well be on the young people who see the movie, since their belief systems are still in the process of development and are more susceptible to new teachings. Barna also mentioned the potential effect of the DVD on millions more people who do not see the movie in the theater, but rent or buy it for home viewing after the theatrical run is completed. “We know that in a home setting, young people frequently watch movies over and over, memorizing lines and absorbing ideas that they might not have caught during their first viewing.” He also stated that some studies have shown that movies have greater “stickiness” with information than do print materials, possibly making the movie even more influential than the book in terms of long-term impact on people’s spiritual development.

The Barna survey also indicates that the audience segments most likely to attend the movie are people under 35; Catholics; Hispanics; and political liberals. On the spiritual side, people who are not born again Christians are almost twice as likely to see the movie as are people whose beliefs classify them as “born again.”

Research Details

The data in this report are based on interviews with 1003 adults from across the nation. These telephone surveys were conducted by The Barna Group, during May 2006, based upon a random sample of people 18 years of age and older living within the 48 continental states. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample of adults is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. In the research, the distribution of survey respondents corresponded to the geographic dispersion of the U.S. population. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a reliable distribution of qualified individuals.

“Born again Christians” are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “born again.”

The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) is a privately held, for-profit corporation that conducts primary research, produces media resources pertaining to spiritual development, and facilitates the healthy spiritual growth of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries. Located in Ventura, California, Barna has been conducting and analyzing primary research to understand cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors since 1984. If you would like to receive free e-mail notification of the release of each new, weekly update on the latest research findings from The Barna Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna website www.barna.org

© The Barna Group, Ltd, 2006.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2006, 02:39:39 PM »
JA, do you have something more concrete than just a blanken statement that "humans aren't naturally monogamous animals"?  this sounds more like a justification of a lifestyle than it does fact.   :-\

I agree.  Sounds like opinion, not fact. 

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #55 on: May 15, 2006, 10:05:07 PM »
JA, do you have something more concrete than just a blanken statement that "humans aren't naturally monogamous animals"?  this sounds more like a justification of a lifestyle than it does fact.   :-\


Name another Primate that is monogamous.


Name 10 other MAMMALS that are monogamous.


Explain why the rate of infidelity is so high.

Explain why the divoce rate is so high.

Explain why studies prove that both married men and women are still sexually attracted to others than their spouse.


All evidence humans aren't monogamous.

Oldschool Flip

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3309
  • Eat Balut! High in Protein!
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #56 on: May 15, 2006, 10:13:59 PM »

Name another Primate that is monogamous.


Name 10 other MAMMALS that are monogamous.


Explain why the rate of infidelity is so high.

Explain why the divoce rate is so high.

Explain why studies prove that both married men and women are still sexually attracted to others than their spouse.


All evidence humans aren't monogamous.
Got to agree with Johnny on most of these except the divorce rate. Most divorces are over money matters.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2006, 12:15:13 AM »

Name another Primate that is monogamous.


Name 10 other MAMMALS that are monogamous.


Explain why the rate of infidelity is so high.

Explain why the divoce rate is so high.

Explain why studies prove that both married men and women are still sexually attracted to others than their spouse.


All evidence humans aren't monogamous.

We're not animals.  Animals lack common sense.  And just because an animal can't control certain behavior, but humans can, doesn't mean the animal behavior is normal.  Don't really see a comparison.

Explain why so many married couples DON'T cheat.

Explain why half of all people who get married STAY married.

All evidence monogamy is perfectly normal.

I don't know what "studies" you're referring to, so can't comment on that.

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #58 on: May 16, 2006, 12:36:03 AM »
We're not animals.


Animals are any speceis that belongs to the Kingdom known as "Animalia".

Humans are Homo Sapiens.

Homo Sapiens belong to that kingdom.


Animals lack common sense.  And just because an animal can't control certain behavior, but humans can, doesn't mean the animal behavior is normal.  Don't really see a comparison.


Animals don't lack common sense. Many animals are extremly smart. Dolphins,Dogs,Chimps..All very smart and have common sense.


Animals absolutely can control their behavior. My dog controls himself by telling me he wants to go outside and pee by jumping at the door. He controls himself by barking at the door when he wants to come inside. He controls himself by barking at the dog food bag when he's hungry.

There's no such thing as "Animal behavior". Each animal behaves differently including humans. Human behavior is different from dog or monkey behavior. However that doesn't change the fact that Humans ARE animals and their behavior is similar to that of their closest relatives.


Explain why so many married couples DON'T cheat.

Explain why half of all people who get married STAY married.

All evidence monogamy is perfectly normal.

I don't know what "studies" you're referring to, so can't comment on that.

Those who don't cheat want to or have thought about it. They feel obligated by society not to through.

What studies am I refering to?


Genetic influences on female infidelity and number of sexual partners in humans: a linkage and association study of the role of the vasopressin receptor gene (AVPR1A).

Quote
Nonetheless, our findings on the heritability of sexual infidelity and number of sexual partners provide support for certain evolutionary theories of human sexual behavior, as well as justifying further genetic and molecular research in this domain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15607016&dopt=Abstract

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #59 on: May 16, 2006, 01:05:58 AM »
I disagree.  Dogs, for example, cannot control sexual behavior.  When they're in heat they will mate with the nearest available dog, by force if necessary.  And if they can't find their own kind, they will hump a human's leg.  Humans can control this kind of behavior.

And, again, why is that half of all marriages succeed?  More abnormal behavior? 

I read the link you posted.  It proves nothing.  You took a quote out of context.  Here is the entire passage (emphasis added):

In humans, in contrast to animals, the genetic influences on infidelity are unclear. We report here a large study of over 1600 unselected United Kingdom female twin pairs who confidentially reported previous episodes of infidelity and total lifetime number of sexual partners, as well as attitudes towards infidelity. Our findings demonstrate that infidelity and number of sexual partners are both under moderate genetic influence (41% and 38% heritable, respectively) and the genetic correlation between these two traits is strong (47%). Conversely, attitudes towards infidelity are driven by shared and unique environmental, but not genetic, influences. A genome-wide linkage scan identified three suggestive but nonsignificant linkage areas associated with infidelity and number of sexual partners on chromosomes 3, 7 and 20 with a maximum LOD score of 2.46. We were unsuccessful in associating infidelity or number of sexual partners with a locus implicated in other mammals' sexual behavior, the vasopressin receptor gene. Nonetheless, our findings on the heritability of sexual infidelity and number of sexual partners provide support for certain evolutionary theories of human sexual behavior, as well as justifying further genetic and molecular research in this domain.
 

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #60 on: May 16, 2006, 03:10:38 AM »
I disagree.  Dogs, for example, cannot control sexual behavior.  When they're in heat they will mate with the nearest available dog, by force if necessary.  And if they can't find their own kind, they will hump a human's leg.  Humans can control this kind of behavior.

Dogs having no inhibitions doesn't mean they can't control themselves. It just means they feel like having sex so they do it. Humans on the other hand usually don't due to society.

Humans in primative societies will rape anyone whom they see fit.

Also rape isn't an uncommon thing even in western society. Obviously humans don't have much more control than other animals do.


And, again, why is that half of all marriages succeed?  More abnormal behavior?

I explained already.

Society pushes them to stay together. They feel obligated to do so.



I read the link you posted.  It proves nothing.  You took a quote out of context.  Here is the entire passage (emphasis added):

In humans, in contrast to animals, the genetic influences on infidelity are unclear.

This is saying the contrast between humans and other animals the gentetic influences aren't known. I.E. the difference of genetic influences of heredity of humans compaired to animals.



Conversely, attitudes towards infidelity are driven by shared and unique environmental, but not genetic, influences. A


This doesn't say infidelity is driven by environment not genetics. It says ATTITUDES towards infidelity are driven by environment and not genetics.
This i've already been saying.

Read their conclusion.

Quote
Nonetheless, our findings on the heritability of sexual infidelity and number of sexual partners provide support for certain evolutionary theories of human sexual behavior, as well as justifying further genetic and molecular research in this domain.


Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #61 on: May 16, 2006, 06:33:15 AM »

Name another Primate that is monogamous.


Name 10 other MAMMALS that are monogamous.


Explain why the rate of infidelity is so high.

Explain why the divoce rate is so high.

Explain why studies prove that both married men and women are still sexually attracted to others than their spouse.


All evidence humans aren't monogamous.

with the exception of your first two questions, i can say with complete confidence that the answer to all other questions are due to the fact that we as humans have fallen away from the biblical values passed down from our ancestors.  the Bible warns us against lusting for another man's wife or a woman lusting after a married man.  this undoubtedly shows that God knows that we are lustful (a sin).  it's an ignorant thought to believe that once we are married we no longer see others of the opposite sex as appealing.  divorce and infidelity are high because there is an increasing number of those in this world with the kind of thought pattern that you share, which is asinine beyond compare.  you think that we are so much like the other animals of this world. 

i have a question in response to your question about primates?  if we are so much like primates, why have they not "evolved" as we have?  you would think that if we were so closely related in DNA that we would be able to see a pattern of evolution.  but we can't, now can we? 


Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #62 on: May 16, 2006, 10:00:14 AM »
with the exception of your first two questions, i can say with complete confidence that the answer to all other questions are due to the fact that we as humans have fallen away from the biblical values passed down from our ancestors.  the Bible warns us against lusting for another man's wife or a woman lusting after a married man.  this undoubtedly shows that God knows that we are lustful (a sin).  it's an ignorant thought to believe that once we are married we no longer see others of the opposite sex as appealing.  divorce and infidelity are high because there is an increasing number of those in this world with the kind of thought pattern that you share, which is asinine beyond compare.  you think that we are so much like the other animals of this world. 

i have a question in response to your question about primates?  if we are so much like primates, why have they not "evolved" as we have?  you would think that if we were so closely related in DNA that we would be able to see a pattern of evolution.  but we can't, now can we? 






And people wonder why I insult Christians....

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #63 on: May 16, 2006, 10:26:53 AM »



And people wonder why I insult Christians....


you usually resort to insults when you don't have an answer that you would deem legit.  this is par for the course from you.

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #64 on: May 16, 2006, 10:44:51 AM »
you usually resort to insults when you don't have an answer that you would deem legit.  this is par for the course from you.


You're just asking for a spanking aren't you?


Well since you're so anxious i'll oblidge...



with the exception of your first two questions, i can say with complete confidence that the answer to all other questions are due to the fact that we as humans have fallen away from the biblical values passed down from our ancestors.  the Bible warns us against lusting for another man's wife or a woman lusting after a married man.  this undoubtedly shows that God knows that we are lustful (a sin).  it's an ignorant thought to believe that once we are married we no longer see others of the opposite sex as appealing.  divorce and infidelity are high because there is an increasing number of those in this world with the kind of thought pattern that you share, which is asinine beyond compare.  you think that we are so much like the other animals of this world.

Circular reasoning. Using the bible to support the bible.

You first have to prove the bible is accurate before you can base any arguments off of it. 


i have a question in response to your question about primates?  if we are so much like primates, why have they not "evolved" as we have?  you would think that if we were so closely related in DNA that we would be able to see a pattern of evolution.  but we can't, now can we?

You're so scientifically illerate it's laughable...Yet completly unfunny.


We aren't only so much 'like' primates..We ARE primates.

Why haven't other primates evolved? They have. They have been evolving as long as we have. We both share the same ancestors. However divergent evolution occured and we humans took a different course from other primates. They evolve just like us but you're making the false assumption evolution has some goal in mind. This is false. Evolution is a gradual process of adaption to the environment.


"If we were so closely related by DNA"? We ARE so closely related by dna. it's no assumption. it's a fact. Dna evidence proves this. Take your DNA and compaire it to a chimps and you're over 98% similar. take ANY humans DNA and compaire it to a chimps and they're over 98% similar.

A "patern of evolution"? what does this even mean? Do you even know what the term "divergent evolution" means? Think of a fork. The base is where we start and the ends are where we end up. The path "diverges" into different paths gradually. This is what happened with Humans and their other Primate cousins. They "diverged" into different paths and are gradually changing.

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #65 on: May 16, 2006, 11:27:56 AM »
Quote from: Johnny Apollo

You're just asking for a spanking aren't you?


Well since you're so anxious i'll oblidge...



Circular reasoning. Using the bible to support the bible.

You first have to prove the bible is accurate before you can base any arguments off of it. 


You're so scientifically illerate it's laughable...Yet completly unfunny.


We aren't only so much 'like' primates..We ARE primates.

Why haven't other primates evolved? They have. They have been evolving as long as we have. We both share the same ancestors. However divergent evolution occured and we humans took a different course from other primates. They evolve just like us but you're making the false assumption evolution has some goal in mind. This is false. Evolution is a gradual process of adaption to the environment.


"If we were so closely related by DNA"? We ARE so closely related by dna. it's no assumption. it's a fact. Dna evidence proves this. Take your DNA and compaire it to a chimps and you're over 98% similar. take ANY humans DNA and compaire it to a chimps and they're over 98% similar.

A "patern of evolution"? what does this even mean? Do you even know what the term "divergent evolution" means? Think of a fork. The base is where we start and the ends are where we end up. The path "diverges" into different paths gradually. This is what happened with Humans and their other Primate cousins. They "diverged" into different paths and are gradually changing.

I wouldn't necessarily call this a spanking, Johnny.  But if it makes you feel good, carry on.

Even though our DNA matches 98% of a chimps DNA, isn't there a vast amount of unknown in the remaining 2% that differentiates us?  I see your point about divergent evolution, but I liken this definition of it to something more like how we end up with different breeds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, etc .  The fork analogy makes sense as to why we have so many different looks for humans, but I guess I'm still not understanding how this links humans and apes together. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #66 on: May 16, 2006, 05:40:31 PM »
I agree with Colossus.  Johnny you are outnumbered!   :)

Mr. Intenseone

  • Guest
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #67 on: May 16, 2006, 06:09:42 PM »
I agree with Colossus.  Johnny you are outnumbered!   :)

Didn't you know that everyone's wrong but Johnny??

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #68 on: May 16, 2006, 06:35:10 PM »
And people wonder why I insult Christians....

What happened to, "I don't disrespect anyone for their religious beliefs - I only disagree with them"?  ::)


OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #69 on: May 16, 2006, 06:42:02 PM »
Quote
What happened to, "I don't disrespect anyone for their religious beliefs - I only disagree with them"?  Roll Eyes

That would fall under the category of social competence.  He's half empty in that category.


Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #70 on: May 17, 2006, 01:18:42 AM »
Even though our DNA matches 98% of a chimps DNA, isn't there a vast amount of unknown in the remaining 2% that differentiates us?  I see your point about divergent evolution, but I liken this definition of it to something more like how we end up with different breeds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, etc .  The fork analogy makes sense as to why we have so many different looks for humans, but I guess I'm still not understanding how this links humans and apes together. 


1.There is alot of difference within that 2%. Differenting Chimps from Humans. But there is also difference between brother and sister but they're still related.

2.We aren't just "linked" to apes. Technically Homo Sapiens ARE apes. Be specific when you're naming a species. Say Gorilla or chimp. Not just "ape" since we are technically apes ourselves. We're "linked" to other apes from the fact we both evolved from the same ancestors. We're related.

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #71 on: May 17, 2006, 01:20:25 AM »
I agree with Colossus.  Johnny you are outnumbered!   :)


Right...I MUST be wrong because most people disagree with me!



Same must of applied to Galileo when he said the Earth orbited the sun!


 ::)

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #72 on: May 17, 2006, 07:43:21 AM »
Quote from: Johnny Apollo
1.There is alot of difference within that 2%. Differenting Chimps from Humans. But there is also difference between brother and sister but they're still related.
but brother and sister can be traced directly to parents, or at least one parent.  are you saying that humans can be traced directly to chimps/gorillas (take your pick of species)? 

Quote from: Johnny Apollo
2.We aren't just "linked" to apes. Technically Homo Sapiens ARE apes. Be specific when you're naming a species. Say Gorilla or chimp. Not just "ape" since we are technically apes ourselves. We're "linked" to other apes from the fact we both evolved from the same ancestors. We're related.
So what species did Homo Sapiens evolve from? 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #73 on: May 17, 2006, 03:36:51 PM »

Right...I MUST be wrong because most people disagree with me!



No.  Nothing wrong with being a minority of one.  I do that sometimes.  But you're still wrong.   :)

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: The Da Vinci Code
« Reply #74 on: May 17, 2006, 05:30:24 PM »
We aren't just "linked" to apes. Technically Homo Sapiens ARE apes. Be specific when you're naming a species. Say Gorilla or chimp. Not just "ape" since we are technically apes ourselves. We're "linked" to other apes from the fact we both evolved from the same ancestors. We're related.

Johnny, ...does this make you... a monkey's Uncle?  :D  j/k  ;)
w