Hi Oliver,

One can speculate about historical ifs ad absurdum.

Nobody can deny that all soorts of violence played a role in spreading Christianity, these are facts. What are not facts are CLAIMS that this was the ONLY (or decisive) factor or driving force that made Christianity - rather than some other religion or ideology - prevail for centuries leading to birth of a civilisation we now call the West, unique with its critical (Enlightenment) thinking, with our understanding of science, our level of technological achievements.

Some historians support this claim, some don’t (emphasizing some original qualities of Christianity unprecedented among other religions/ideologies). The same for non-specialist observers or commentators. There are arguments for and there are arguments against this claim. It usually depends on one’s a priori attitude to Christianity, which of them one finds more persuasive.

Your last super-speculation reminded me of a movie - I forgot the name - where due to an accident a male became trapped in a female body, or - another movie - when an old man and his grandson swapped their bodies.

Am enjoying "In the Beginning" by Isaac Asimov. It is an analysis of the first eleven chapters of Genesis using biblical scholarship to show how the material has been pieced together from the J-document and the P-document. It mentions parallels with the older Sumerian/Assyrian/Babylonian myths. It also contrasts the Biblical narrative with the scientific view of the development of the universe, the solar system and life on earth.

Dan, why so shoddy?

Wieland had no time to study paleo or geology when studying medicine, a genuinely humanitarian profession he has not applied himself to. I did, and Wieland is not comparable with real texts on the topic. The "biblical perspective" is not supported by the journals. I know from actually looking. You haven't and it reflects your integrity.

You can't tell me *why* he might be right, just that you think his qualifications exceed mine. Is this how you approach teaching? How you approach the production of books for children? Avoid the issue, awe the impressionable and tout the author? Lousy!

Evolution is incorporated in many fields because it is a fact, like the bulk properties of electricity. Darwin was honest enough to override religious conditioning, knowing the artificially disproportionate social cost to himself.

You were quite clear on another thread that repeated rolls would not increase the probability of a given combination or permutation occurring, that probability approaching unity if enough rolls are performed. Do you teach children that?

Carl Sagan spent his summer sessions working in the laboratory of H J Muller. He has worked closely with some of the greatest biologists of the twentieth century. He is not far from his experience in talking about evolution. Given your lack of such, you should reexamine yours.

Your request (like OUG's) that the full sweep of evolution be demonstrated just for you is not a genuine comparison with the demands made of religionists. Evolution is demonstrated in the fossil record. The mechanism is demonstrated daily in the lab and in the breeding programs. The cellular processes have been adequately dissected to show how numerous aspects of biology work currently and how they evolved from simpler ones. Landmark events in speciation have been identified in exsting organisms. No one claims it is not slow in terms of your lifetime.

Religionists *do* claim instantaneous results, miracles indeed. Demonstrate *that*.

Perhaps it's out of your depth. Dust off the philosophy primer for tips on how to make the best of it.

as i have said..too much here..i move to here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3957&page=0

davids..<<..J-document and the P-document..>>sounds..interesting
[worth a search..i rekon]...and i will return/here..to see what david-reveals

for me it only reveals..that the enlightened..thinking
revealed..in them..is even/more inspired..by fact
science..has but/only..recently...validated

life/comes from life
and it began with logic..and a big-bang[let there be/light]

rusties/waffle/quote..<<Evolution/is..incorporated in many-fields..because it is..a fact,>>>

is so/typically..out-of reality..its hardly worth..reply

'a/fact'?..lol
'incorperated..across..many/fields'

none/of..which..is conclusive
NOR able to be relicated
none..have written..faulsifyables
true science..DEMANDS..[its a joke]

<<like the bulk-properties of electricity.>>
are easilly contained..easilly verifyable
easy..replicatable

un-like..evolution..exta..genus
which is fraud

then/he quotes..<<Darwin was/honest..enough>>
then re-writes..his words...lol

<<to override/religious..conditioning>>
you clearly..havnt read his works,

<<knowing the/artificially..disproportionate social-cost..to himself.>>is pure..stuff...and nonsense

<<repeated rolls would/not increase..the probability/of..a given combination or permutation..occurring,..that probability/approaching unity..if enough rolls..are performed.>>

the impossable..is stil impossable
your eyes..will never emmit/sparks
live/with-it

<<Carl Sagan/is not fa.. from his experience/in talking about evolution.>>

so what...he can evolve/his thinking
but cant/evolve...his body..nor-can..you
it you[and him..cant..evolve..anything]
let this speak for fraud

Given your lack of such,..you should reexamine yours.

<<Your request..(like OUG's)..that the full/sweep..of evolution be demonstrated>>>mate..there are talkers..and there are doers

YOU claim/science
replicate..of perish

replicte..,<<just for you/is not a genuine-comparison>>>
nor is compareing..micro-evolution
into macro-evolution

<<Evolution is/demonstrated..in the fossil record.>>
ok funny boy..present..the record
its mostly fraud
besides...phenotype[looks-like]
dont mean..it was genotype[mutation]

as you would know many/mutations.distort..the body
looks-like..is deciet-full..if you cant..replicte..its not science

<<The mechanism/is demonstrated..daily..in the lab>>...
AT THE MICRO/level
NEVER..in all those lab/experments..
HAS ANY CHANGE OF GENUS..[macro-evolution]..BEEN RECORDED

<<and in/the..breeding programs>>>
where wheat/breds wheat
bacteria/breed bacteria

sheep/breed sheep
pigeons/breed..pigeons
fruit-flies..breed..fruit-flies...lol

'it's out of your depth'....rusty
you got NUTHIN

'make the/best..of it'...
while..your deciet/lasts....

Dear George,

My super-spectulation was a little tongue in cheek ... true ;-).

When one overlays the progress lines of the West with China. China shows a slow incremental increase very constistently over the centuries. The West dips into the Dark Ages and takes off with Great Divergence. Aristotle (?) spoke of Episte, Praxis and Techne. The Chinese were great at the latter and poor at the former. For the West the learning how to learn rediscovery of Greek thought as you would know came largely fom the Muslims who preserved Greek teachings.

The Churches were centres of scholarship no doubt, yet they did tend to impede progress before the Enlightenment. Perhaps, by being doctrinaire.

What theism does demonstrate is a capacity to think beyond the phyiscal: Something science found difficult until the 1920s.
Although a sceptic, I feel some myth involves higher order abstraction: e.g., belief in another realm.

Deardavid f,

The Isaac Asimov book sounds fancinating. I suspect there are Jews and Christians out there who don't know OT evolved

George,

<<At the risk of repeating myself, one cannot reproduce, say, the world of ancient Rome in a “laboratory”, leaving out one historical “ingredient” - Christianity in this case - and see how it would evolve through centuries.>>

That’s true, however, considering progress and technology started evolving long before Christianity or Constantine’s Christendom, I think we can safely say that - even though it would have happened in a very different way - progress and technology didn’t NEED Constantine’s Christendom.

<<Of course, you are entitled to your beliefs about how our civilisation evolved, or could have evolved. So is Whitehead and so am I.>>

Well yes, there are opinions that are based on reasoning (such as what I mentioned in regards to progress and technology) and there’s bald-faced assertions. Are you aware of what reasoning or basis Whitehead had for making the claim you quoted? If so, then I’d be curious to know because I’m just wandering if his claim is the former or the latter.

We can all agree to disagree and have our opinions and all that, but your laboratory analogy - as accurate as it is - doesn’t mean that we have no way of determining which of opinion is more likely.