Chicken or the egg which came first.

[HHR Ed]

And that brings us to a great point so thank you.

The point is...

What caused the dark ages?

Could it have been the rise of the Christians to power and the subsequent demonizing of scientific studies and intellect?

Ever hear about how a few hundred years AD that Iraq and the mid east was the world power for science and math?

Algebra started there, most of the stars in our sky have Arabic names.

But

It all fell because Religious leaders there started to preach that math was the devil's work.

Now look where the mid east is.

This is what the frame of mind of denying scientific truths in favor of your traditional religious notions can do. It is an extreme case, but if left unchecked and scientific literacy not taught, the USA can fall into a similar fate.

it was the Greeks/Egyptian/Chinese who came up with Maths we would use today

They all had input and so did others

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~sxw8045/history.htm

and Newton invented calculus

[DHFHades]

Keep the religious shit off this forum people.

fuckin' Chris...I was about to go ape shit on some people bustin out some evolutionary knowledge but I could not have kept it civil...so thnx

[xStatezOfMindZx]

The question says 'What came first? The chicken or the egg?' But it doesn't say if it was a CHICKEN egg or not!

The egg was mutated after it came out of whatever the hell laid it and thus the chicken was born. The egg came first because how do you get the chicken if theres no egg?

The Egg where else does the chicken come from duh!

It was dna that came first which went to a chicken which made eggs.

[TeamHT]

LOL @ Christianity not causing the dark ages, in fact...Christianity helped during those times

Even if you were religious, anyone care to tell me why that period in history was named the Dark Ages?

The topic has gotten clearly sidetracked in an attempt to maintain the creationist view, although the religion being discussed now almost has nothing to do with the original intention of this thread, lol.

A belief in science opens the mind to all logical, and sometimes illogical, explanations granting they are able to research, study, and experiment. A belief in theological areas almost means you have to close your mind to anything that opposes your view. There's no reason why you could not believe in god and his creation, AND evolution.

[kirill007]

Ed, the bible doesn't say the earth is flat. In fact, it is referenced as round or circular many times. Maybe you should stop putting words in God's mouth.

round of circular = no 3d=2d=flat. (and it's not god who has written it...)

And the Bible has been adapted. Monks did have to copy it exactly the same. But in reality they didn't. Left pages out of it and adapted. Just like in some revolutionary books in the middle ages.

[PandorasCustoms]

Is it so hard to believe that you can be a creationist and a respected scientist?

Even if you were religious, anyone care to tell me why that period in history was named the Dark Ages?

If I am not mistaken, historians today prefer to call if the Medeival Era instead of Dark Ages. I was not the one who originally used the term, but it was introduced to describe the plummit of technology and the overall poor era the world was placed into. I can't remember this having anything to do directly with religion.

A belief in theological areas almost means you have to close your mind to anything that opposes your view.

It is incredibly comedic how many people continue to state this, when many people who back evolution have not taken as much time to thoroughly study creation without a pre-disposed idea that it was incorrect. Being closed minded is found on both ends many times. And, again, I may never be able to "prove" creation, but I can believe it enough to be able to sift through all of the B/S that evolution based scientists feed the people.

There's no reason why you could not believe in god and his creation, AND evolution.

You are correct in a general term. But, being a Christian (Baptist, Catholic, etc...) would not be so easy, seeing as evolution is clearly disproven from a Biblical standpoint.

And the Bible has been adapted. Monks did have to copy it exactly the same. But in reality they didn't. Left pages out of it and adapted. Just like in some revolutionary books in the middle ages.

From previous studies the only time a monk or historian edited text was during translation as sometimes what took 3-4 greek words took only one latin word. I don't know how many people have study greek, but it has no punctuation or capitaliztion. It looks like one huge page of text and isn't that easy to read.

[TeamHT]

You have done nothing but PROVE the points made in my post. Thank you.

[Jd1102]

pandorascustoms u do know that ppl don't even know for sure which books belong and which don't in the bible right the just picked the ones they liked best and also christians took alot of there religion from somerians when they conquered them. thats where everyone gets that the snake in the garden of eden was the devil but it wasn't just a demon. and somerians believed aliens made the first man named adamu sound familiar? like maybe adam and the best kept records of religion are from the indians( not native americans) and they believe in aliens also

edit: also the somerians predate christians by 2000 years

[Namosh]

Is there a concrete reason attributed to the dark ages? I think it was caused by a climatic catastrophe...like a massive volcano that caused the earth to descend into a mini ice age....humans were so preoccupied with just surviving, that things like art and science took a back seat to finding food.

And how the hell does the term "dark ages" have anything to do with religion? It is called that because of the utter lack of any advancement in civilizations or even documentation of what was going on during that period. It hasn't got shit to do with the church.

[PandorasCustoms]

u do know that ppl don't even know for sure which books belong and which don't in the bible right the just picked the ones they liked best

The New Testament cannon used in the Holy Bible was chosen during the Council of Trent. Yes, many books were left out (Hence the reason the Apocrapha used in Catholicsm has more books to it), but all of the books chosen were selected because they all had a direct involvement with either Jesus Christ or God and driectly identified him as so. I understand this may not have been the best way, but I was not apart of the Council who made the decision. We just have to trust the men who were apart of it were smart and made the correct decisions on what to and not to add.

Regardless of what was left out, nothing was modified or omitted due to inaccuracies. It was just done so because it was not seen fit to be apart of the Bible.

And, yes, I personally do have a unique belief of the Bible compared to some other Christian associates. I do agree that MEN wrote the Bible, but they wrote of occurances that acutally happened or they were envisioned with. So, the words they chose to write on those scrolls were the best way they could describe the events they were involved in. This is probably another reason why some minor factors clash when studying different areas. The Gospels (First four books of the New Testament) alone have four different authors and write of the same events. Just like sports commentators today, not everyone in the room will come to the exact same conclusion even if they all saw the exact same event.

also christians took alot of there religion from somerians when they conquered them. thats where everyone gets that the snake in the garden of eden was the devil but it wasn't just a demon. and somerians believed aliens made the first man named adamu sound familiar?

I would have to study more on this. I do not have an account what History records between the Sumerians and the introductions of "Jews". But, as far as I am aware, the "cuneiform" writings were documented as eye-witness accounts of the events which occured in the Garden of Eden, even more so, concluding that Adam, the first human, would have had knowledge of literature. Although the Bible version is written by Moses much later, the cuneiform only confirmed which was written by him. Even Genesis 5:1 records "This is the book of the generations of Adam." And, the account of the flood was written in regards to the account documented by Noah and his family. Genesis 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God" So, what is to say the Pagans did not copy and contort the stories originally documented by the early believers of God and Christ?