Sergei,

Lets put this in context.

Yabby said "It was the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, called the dark ages, which held up progress and free thought for eons."
Which was the point I responding to in my original post. Yabby's comment is typical of the 'dark ages' propaganda that was considered historically accurate until recent times (I think the 1950's). Yabby's attitude continues to be common today (see 'A World Lit Only by Fire' for a painful, but well written example), even though, as even your encyclopedia mentions, the end date of the dark ages has been pushed back from around 1500 to 1000 due to findings showing the large amount of innovation, invention and records from 1000 to 1500. Talk about an ad hoc argument from silence.

You can continue to argue all you want, but unless you are adressing Stark's argument, which includes the time period he refers to in his book, you are merely attacking a straw man. For more evidence that the period Stark refers to is 476 to 1500, you can view this other article of his http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0109.html where he says "For the past several centuries, far too many of us have been misled by the incredible fiction that, from the fall of Rome until about the 15th century, Europe was submerged in the Dark Ages"

Other links that talk about the different dates given for the dark ages include
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr41.htm (Talk about a hostile witness)
http://www.archaeology.org/9809/abstracts/darkages.html (Abstract only)
http://www.cob-net.org/text/history_darkages.htm
Many more are available. Clearly the period is more arbitrarily defined.

Sergei (cont)
What I really love is your own link http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa072502f.htm?terms=dark+ages has the great quote
"The Early Medieval Era is sometimes still called the Dark Ages. This epithet oiginated with those who wanted to compare the earlier period unfavorably with their own so-called "enlightened" age. Modern scholars who have actually studied the time period would not so readily use the label, since passing judgment on the past interferes with a true understanding of the time and its people. Yet the term is still somewhat apt for the simple reason that we know relatively little about events and material culture in those times."

Which was my original point exactly. Does your quoting this source as authoritative mean that you now agree with the point that it was just enlightenment propaganda?

Regarding Su Sung and clocks, actually, I am wrong. I was writing from memory, and the date of the device I was referring to was the 9th century. Su Sung's clock was in the 11th century (so we were both wrong there).

Your quoted about the use of clocks in europe between 500 and 1500 is obviously wrong by italy and frances creation of clock towers in the 13th century.

I especially love how you define what was the 'key' innovation was and conveniently this always supports you point. Wouldn't the key innovation in eyeglasses be using a shaped peice of glass to help you see better (e.g for reading)? You also have moved from 'No innovation' to 'key' innovation as your criteria (e.g. in crossbow innovations). Nice moving goal posts you have.

YABBBBBBY.....
just a quick correction to your misconception.. (a stubborn one by the look of it)... I came to Christ FROM the darkness I mentioned in that post. I'ts not that I haven't been there.. that is exactly where I ran from mate.. in my early 20s.

I had to 'de-brainwash' myself from secular emptiness.
Please lose this 'fear fear fearrrrr' thing you continually attribute to Christians.

You suggested that once we set ourselves freeee from all this 'guilt' we will suddenly be unleashed into a great adventure kind of thing... rubbish :) Your post was more a commentary on your own limited and cloistered view of what it means to be truly free..and free indeed.

Anyway.. given enough time, we can sort you out :)

Alchemist, you wrote

'The most glaring fault in ID, is if the universe were created in perfection, there would be no progress, as nothing would need to change.'

The IDers would get around that one in not time. And YOU are using your own definition of ID, falling into a trap by using the IDers' frame of reference.

As I see it, the main fault with ID is that it starts from a presupposition, the very one it is meant to be 'proving'. Like nearly all 'proofs' of god's existence (and let's not pretend that isn't its only purpose), it presupposes god's existence. It does not explain the observable phenomena by reference to acquired knowledge. ID, when all is said and done, merely addresses the fact that 'things exist' and makes an a priori explanation. There are of course, the anomalies and inconsistencies which you have drawn attention to

David! As I've said before, I understand that there are those who are philosphically challenged. The world is too complex to try to understand, they don't understand themselves, so they need an easy and simple answer. So God did it, Allah did it, whatever is a simple
way to balance their brain chemistry and make them feel better.

They need to be born again, but as I said before, I was born ok the first time :) I was also fortunate as a teenager to live for a couple of years in Paris, a place which openend my mind to the potential of philosophy to replace the rubbish that various religions preach. So if your mind was empty, its just lack of good software that did it..

Yup fear plays a huge role in religion, even for you, or you would not wave your finger about judgement day etc. Its at the heart of
many true believers motivations, fear, then of course hope that they won't really die after all...

My problem with the religious is when they interfere in the rest of our lives. I read the catholic dogma of the holy sperms etc and thought about the hundreds of millions of women worldwide who have suffered by this dogma, that the Vatican has tried to enforce in every country it can. Its a crying shame, it really is, yet this
is a major Christian religion, in fact the mother religion of Christianity. You should read a book called "The Sex Lives of the
Popes", to find out what those guys were really up to for all that time!

David, it seems like your addiction to religion keeps you busy and off the streets :), but perhaps one day the reality of the illusion you believe in, will hit you after all. So there is hope for you yet:)

As I would accept ID it does not claim things were created instantly and perfect with no need to change. That might be some Creationists view, but it is not the nature of ionic chemistry where change is the nature of reality.

ID identifies the design in the change as more than accidental and random. It sees intelligent advantage in change that is not at the will, gene or capacity of the preceeding assumed evolved species.

Monotheistic evolution believes God put systems in motion at the beginning that he completed before he rested (withdraw), but are not at any stage a completed in any final form. There is a creation principle within the gene placed there by design. A leaf eating grub does not just become a butterfly there is purposeful design in the proceedure. Theology calls it predestination, though Paul the apostle has a specific definition and application. There is an unfolding time frame in His-story.