Posted on 10/14/2006 11:16:50 AM PDT by lizol
Wikipedia corrected it. Did anyone catch that?
In historiography, the term Dark Ages or Dark Age most commonly refers to the European Early Middle Ages, the period encompassing 476AD after the fall of Rome to 1066AD, the year of the Norman invasion of England.... Or the little blurb before it about related Wikipedia topics? Nothing jumped out and bit me.
Damn those Wikipedia folks are fast.
Lets just say any mention of the subject matter would be grounds for instant banning around here.
Do you have any idea how narrowly available the biblical texts were at the time? I didn't think so. It is appropriate to equate the Dark Ages with those times when the biblicals texts fell into neglect and abuse, for they not only represent the finest of literature, wisdom, and understanding, but they also form the foundation for advanced civilation, the rule of law, democracy, order, and peace. They give science a head start and a reason to seek out order, and purpose in the universe. And that's just from a human perspective.
Spot on. :-)
Ummm... No. Try the Greeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_literature
Yes. I figured some crass editorial liberties were taken when I read the link. Later they disappeared.
"Perhaps the most revealing instance involves the "story" that in order to gain backing for his great voyage west, Columbus had to struggle against ignorant and superstitious churchmen who were certain that the earth was flat. Truth was that all educated Europeans, including bishops and cardinals, knew the earth was round. What produced church opposition to the Columbus voyage was that Columbus believed the circumference of the earth was only about one-fifth of its actual distance. Thus, the church scholars who opposed him did so because they knew that he and his sailors were bound to perish at sea. And they would have done so had the Western Hemisphere not been there to replenish their food and water." - Rodney Stark
I don't understand what that is about!?
The Greeks were not entirely ignorant of the biblical texts. By the time of the Dark Ages both the Old and New Testaments were published in their language.
Not even your own source agrees with you on that point.
I have been looking at these discussions -- I am still trying to determine how/when the reconciliation of the (minimum of) two versions of the Ten Commandments was completed.
It is important because it is part of what is cited as The Word.
How can I make false statements about a theory? Are my theories less valid than those of others? And, if so, why? My faith is the same as that which has existed among men for thousands of years. Darwin's 'Origin of Species' was published in 1859 after five years of research conducted with the tools available to men in the latter 19th century. If you wish to place your faith in man that is your affair and I have no desire to quarrel with you. I expressed my opinion. I'm not going to change it because a stranger on an internet forum disagrees, and I don't intend to argue with said stranger.
I agree. I would not just take something I read off an Internet message board as gospel either. However, looking over your posts, I can tell you really do not understand TOE. So my suggestion to you is to get some real textbooks on the subject and do a bit of research. Then you will know.
Are my theories less valid than those of others?
A theory in science is not just some random guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.