Sergei,
I understand where you got the date for the 'dark ages' from, but historically, the term was used to the period up to the renaissance.
Wikipedia also notes this.

Perhaps Stark was using the greater period?

Either way, you seem to be mistaken in many of your claims, and even when you could argue you were accurate, you left out information. This is why I would trust Stark's comments more than yours. The venom in your comments also reduce your credibility.

For instance, when you spoke of clocks you made the comment that the enscapement mechanism was necessary for accurate timekeeping, yet history also records that there was an accurate timing device in the 7th century. Mentioning this would have made your point weak.

You also try to claim that there was no inovation or discovery in the dark ages for the crossbow, stirrup or compass. This is also false. You only need to compare the early versions of these items with the versions used in the 10th century to see how innaccurate your statement is. The crossbow is probably the clearest example of this.

Early eyeglasses were around in the 10th century, and early violins (called rebecs) were also from the correct period. Funnily enough, ignore these things.

Health and Life insurance were indeed invented in the dark ages.

So lets summarise. You firstly restrict the term 'dark ages' to a shorter period than it has historically been used for. You ignore inventions that still applied in that shorter period and the many innovations made and for some reason, even though it has been shown to be false, you still think that people believed in a flat earth up to the 12th century.

It is no wonder I don't put much stock in your pronouncements.

Anyone got a bucket of cold water, BD has overheated.

Philo, I recognise animist theory for it's environmental sustainability, there for all to see, except the demons. It's a materialist view, but relevant, to sustainable life. If the sun goes out, or the moon leaves its orbit, we are up the proverbial creek.

If the religious worshiped all your supposed gods creations, as they do their mental fantasies and cared for the works of their god, as animists do. Then your god would be easier to accept as loving and caring. We both know that won't happen, as god is an illusion within the fearful gullible mind. The practise is selfcentred and destructive.

It must be painful not being able to see anything beyond the delusion that nothing could happen without god religion. The only reason god religions defeated animists, was because of their superior weaponry, without that they would've been wiped out. A glaring example of a caring god, can't convert, then kill.

I understand most beleifs and accept them as important to those relying on them. Thats not saying I see them as right, I have my own views on the origins and future of existence. Unlike yours, my philosophy doesn't have boundaries, just an ethical responsibility.

(fantasy scenario) How will you recognise the second coming of your messenger. The last time he came the religious killed him, because he denounced their belief applications. What will he say about your rich churches and mumbo jumbo rituals, he denounced them last time, now things are worse, whats changed.

Because I speak differently and challenge your faith, a lot of you would destroy me. He came as man, what makes you think it will be different, oops sorry forgot descending from the heavens with chariots, fire and brimstone, leading the army of angels intent on revenge. Wouldn't he choose a big space shuttle to fit everyone in, but then the US would blast him as an invader. Poor bugger couldn't win whatever he chooses

Serg. Keep it up cobber, enjoyable parables.

Alan said “I understand where you got the date for the 'dark ages' from, but historically, the term was used to the period up to the renaissance. Wikipedia also notes this.

Wikipedia said “The phrase the Dark Ages (or Dark Age) is most commonly known in relation to the European Early Middle Ages (from about A.D. 476 to about 1000).”

I’m sorry Alan if that does not seem clear enough for you.

Alan said “You firstly restrict the term Dark Ages to a shorter period than it has historically been used for..”

Again the Dark Ages refers to early medieval times, from after the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the first millennium. Refer following links-

http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa072502f.htm?terms=dark+ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages
http://www.finds.org.uk/pastexplorers/fun/periods/early_med.php

One thing I like is this from my trusty World Book Encyclopedia from 1974 Volume 5 “D” page 30.

“Dark Ages is a term once used to describe the Middle Ages. The word “Dark” referred to a supposed lack of learning during the period. We know now that the Middle Ages cannot be described as completely “Dark”. The period only seemed dark to scholars of the more advanced Renaissance and to historians who were later influenced by them.”

This is typical of introductions for a Dark Ages definition. You can find anywhere in any encyclopedia, dictionary or web page. Variances, such as reference to the Middle Ages as Medieval Time with a “Early” & “Late” period, but it is pretty standard. After this introductory statement comes the following. (Obviously to describe how the Dark Ages weren’t that bad or “lacking in learning”.)

“The early centuries of the middle ages, from the A.D. 400’s to the late 900’s came closest to being dark. Civilization sank low in Western Europe. Knowledge from the ancient Romans survived only in a few monastery, cathedral and palace schools. Knowledge acquired from ancient Greece almost disappeared. Few persons received schooling. Many of the art and craftsmanship of the ancient world were lost. Writers had little sense of style. In their ignorance, they accepted popular stories and rumors as true.”

Cont'

Cont’
WHAT? Well it looks like it’s lacking in learning to me and the first sentence even refers it as ..“closest to being dark.” People might not think it polite to call it dark but seems dark to me.

If you can supply a reference which indicates a different time period please go ahead.

As Stark said …”the invention of the compass, stirrups, the crossbow, canons, effective horse harnesses, eyeglasses, clocks, chimneys, violins, double-entry bookkeeping, and insurance? The point that Stark is trying to make is that the Dark Ages which involved a Christian Europe (Not China or the Middle East) weren’t that bad; but uses examples that do not refer to the time period or inventions that came from outside the area.

A rebec is a rebec is a rebec. So therefore it’s not a violin. As I said the violin came outside the time period. Even the adoption of the rebec as an instrument from the Middle East appears to be outside the Dark Ages time period. So is the rebec a ancestor of the violin yes. Somewhat like the ape is a ancestor of man. But the violin like man both developed outside the Dark Ages.

Try these rebec links-
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~pbutler/rebec.html
http://www.earlymusic.i12.com/general/prod_12.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/r1/rebec.asp

Try these violin links-
http://www.gussetviolins.com/earlyhistory.htm
http://musiced.about.com/od/beginnersguide/a/halloween.htm

I especially like the quote-
“Like all good medieval things, the rebec's origins can be traced to the middle east.”

Alan Said”You also try to claim that there was no innovation or discovery in the dark ages for the crossbow, stirrup or compass. You ignore inventions that still….blah blah”

I said quote ”Note: ”remarkable innovation & discovery”. The compass, stirrup and crossbow came from China or Japan and were used prior to the dark ages. No Innovation and discovering that someone else is using it doesn’t really count. Lets expand a little…”

The Compass try-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcompass.htm
http://nvnv.essortment.com/compasshistory_rumo.htm
http://www.solarnavigator.net/marine_compass_history.htm

Clearly invented in China, Clearly came to Europe after the dark ages.

More Shortly all will be addressed.

Cont'

Crossbows try-
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/crossbow-history.html
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/chronology.html
http://worldcrossbow.com/history.html#HISTORY

Clearly invented in China and then came to Europe. Please note the significance of “228 BC Earliest crossbow artifact, a bronze lock mechanism from the tomb of Yu Wang.” This like the clock escapement which I will get to is the key. The brilliance of the crossbow is a person can draw back on the bow and lock the stored energy. Then proceed to aim and shoot. Therefore the innovation of the crossbow itself relies in the locking mechanism. Was there other innovation? Yes. A timber bow was replaced with a steel one, thanks to the Moors. But let’s be clear, a crossbow is a Bow, a String, a Stock and a Lock. This remained unchanged.

The Stirrup try-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup

Yes just one link. It gives a pretty concise history with references that can be checked. The stirrup was invented before the period of the Dark Ages. Did it change during that period? Yes! Why? As armour became heavier the stirrup became sturdier. The foot wear also became larger for armed horsemen so the hole got bigger. Was this innovation or discovery? No! The innovative concept of using a stirrup is to help support a rider.

Alan said” Early eyeglasses were around in the 10th century…” no you are wrong again.

Eyeglasses? try these links-
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/eyeglasses.html
http://www.sideroad.com/Beauty/history-of-eyeglasses.html
http://www.teagleoptometry.com/history.htm
http://www.antiquespectacles.com/history/through_the_ages.htm
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bleyeglass.htm

This is a typical quote from every source available… “Around 1000AD, the first vision aid was invented (inventor unknown) called a reading stone, which was a glass sphere that was laid on top of the material to be read that to magnified the letters. Around 1284 in Italy, Salvino D'Armate is credited with inventing the first wearable eye glasses.” You see… a reading stone, is a reading stone, is a reading stone. So therefore is not a pair of eyeglasses.

Get ready the clock is coming…

Alchemist,
You are beginning to sound more in tune with the God of Creation than many of the ritualistic practising anamists or monotheistic religions. Understanding Creation is essential to understanding the Edenic commission. This commission is the eternal responsibility of man while he lives here. Though you deny god/s; creation is essentially God's work and a proper understanding of it brings us closer to its origins and purpose.

In fact you may be espousing the Edenic commission given to man, better than most city dwellers who only read religious books. If you hold that everything in the universe operates as a single closed unit even though diverse you are moving in the direction of monotheism. One divine Spirit moves in all creation and creastures to reveal his purpose. Man is held as the only defiant part that seems to act outside a closed system; however the system gets him in the end in death.

The person who treats God with respect, and assists others with respect is closer to the God of Creation and is held as valued in the eternal kingdom of truth and right living