Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dark Ages Caused by Celestial Comet?
Yes... a renaissance period ... and never forget that the classic renaissance period began with a century of Black Death that erased at least a third of the European population S2
Sodomia delenda est

The Plague, yes, but there never was a "Dark Ages." Knowledge and Science continued to grow - even through those lean years.
Just like today S6
Sodomia delenda est

I take that back. There was no "Dark Ages" in Europe because of Christianity - but there was a "Dark Ages" under Islam - where knowledge and technology coming from infidels was rejected. That was the given reason for Charles (the Hammer) Martel driving the Moors out of Spain. He had far fewer warriors, but his rode horses with stirrups, saddles, and bridals, along with other martial improvements the Islamic forces had never heard of. His knights also dipped their swords in dung, which the Moors knew doomed them to death without an afterlife.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the phrase "Dark Ages" likely appears to refer to actual darkening, most likely from Impactors.

Dark Ages: Did a comet impact cause global catastrophe around 500 A.D.?

Astronomers Unravel A Mystery Of The Dark Ages: Undergraduates' Work Blames Comet For 6th-Century 'Nuclear Winter'

The European 'Dark Age' And Welsh Oral Tradition on the trail of The Dragon ...

The Dark Ages : Were They Darker Than We Imagined?

Quote:Ben Rudder, an anthropologist who reviewed in New Scientist magazine a recently published book by Baillie on the subject, wrote :
Quote:"If Baillie is right, history has overlooked probably the single most important explanation for the intermittent progress of civilisation. Worse, our modern confidence in benign skies is foolhardy, and our failure to appreciate the constant danger of comet "swarms" is the result of a myopic trust in a mere 200 years of "scientific" records."
Baillie himself notes that :
Quote:"There is, I feel, a strong case for the contention that we do not inhabit a benign planet. This planet is bombarded relatively often. If this story is correct, we have been bombarded at least three times - and probably five times - since the birth of civilisation some 5,000 years ago. And each time, the world was changed."
In their book "The Origin Of Comets", Bailey, Clube, and Napier write :
Quote:"the destruction and chaos accompanying the fate of the Roman empire [midway through the First Millennium] was all but total, the almost complete breakdown of the old order leading to a loss of the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of antiquity which was far from temporary."
Some of these ideas you may have heard of before. In the 1950s, Immanuel Velikovsky published a number of books, in particular "Worlds In Collision", which suggested that a huge comet had come near to Earth, and had indeed settled into an orbit around the Sun between Mercury and Earth. Velikovsky was claiming that Venus was a large comet!

Naturally, his ideas were rubbished. They had no scientific foundation. The problem today, as Duncan Steel notes, is that astronomers have become so entrenched in their rightful criticism of Velikovsky's nonsense, they are rejecting today's scientifically-founded discoveries that the myths and records of ancient civilisations may contain important information about what was happening in the sky.

Only now are we seriously contemplating the view that "near-Earth space" is anything but safe. Is it possible that the ancients were not entirely ignorant in their beliefs of the appearance of comets being a bad omen? Fragments hitting the ground would cause earthquakes and blast damage, as well as start forest fires (fire storms?) and perhaps volcanoes - which in turn would amplify the environmental effects through the release of soot into the air. Fragments hitting the water would generate tsunamis which would flood coastal and inland regions. Would it surprise you to learn that, according to Baillie, the ancient Celtics had an oath which translates as :
Quote:"We will not move from this place until the stars fall from the sky, the earth quakes and the sea comes over the land."
In "Lessons from Jupiter", Clube and Asher wrote :
Quote:"We do not of course deny a general background of [Earth-crossing asteroids] from the asteroid belt but it is these meteoroidal streams, harbouring swarms of super-Tunguska debris, which are now perceived as the source of high-level dust veils and low-level airbursts in the atmosphere, essentially controlling climate and extinction on Earth and punctuating the course of evolution."

From my reading of history, The term "Dark Ages" is a later-day title bestowed on a time in Europpe because the atheist intelligensia wanted to denigrate religious believers as vapid dupes wrapped up in magical preachments that allow bigotry, bias, and hatred to flourish in the name of Church and God. After all, hasn't religion been the root cause of all wars throughout history, and the cause of the Dark ages that destroyed civilization, until Liberal elites appeared, giving birth to the Rennaissance?

The term is later-day, and was not used contemporaneously.

Consider the tendency of the Left to disparage the right as religious extremists and strongly anti-science. Once again, how can one begrudge a poor Lib who learned Columbus almost never discovered America because the religious zealots said he was a heretic? The Dems learned in school that the church decreed the Earth was flat and that was that. Going back farther, who hasn't learned that the great enlightened civilization of Greece and Rome ended when the Church entered the picture, and then began a "Dark Ages" That lasted until The Rennaissance? This disinformation is all wrong, yet believed devoutly by the Left.

Rodney Stark in How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science presents the accepted and unargued true history that is unreported in school books.
It was Andrew Dickson White who Wrote:The warfare of Columbus [with religion] the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta bested him in Portugal,; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him with the usual quotations from Psalms, from St, Paul, and from St. Augustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had greatly strengthened the theory of the Earth's sphericity... the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray... the theological barriers to this geographical truth yielded but slowly. Plain as it had become to scholars, they hesitated to declare it to the world at large... But in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his famous voyage. He proves the Earth is round, for his expedition circumnavigates it... Yet even this does not end the war. Many conscientious [religious[ men oppose the doctrine for two hundred years longer.
Every history book recounts how Columbus fought the religious extremists who used the Bible to decree the Earth was Flat. Name a Liberal who knows any different!

White lied. He was running for President of Cornell and admitted he wrote this to "get even with his Christian critics of his plans for Cornell." Every educated person of Columbus's time knew the earth was round. This includes Roman Catholic theologians. The Venerable Bede (ca. 673-735) taught that the Earth was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (ca. 720-784). Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), and all four became Saints. It was part of an ages-old conspiracy of atheists to portray Religion as being anti-Science. Columbus was not argued out of sailing off the edge of the world. The scientist of his day knew the world was round - but much larger than Columbus estimated. He put Japan at being only 2,080 miles from the Canary Islands, but the "sundry wise men of Spain" knew it was over 14,000 miles. Had Columbus not run across an unsuspected continent - his crew would have all died at Sea.

But then again, the entire "Dark ages" is a crock. Christianity actually inspired science. There was no science in ancient Greece or Rome. Aristotle thought the weight of objects were proportional to the speed with which they dropped. A simple test by dropping two different weights off a cliff never occurred to him. Guesswork without empiricism is not science. It was only at the birth of Christianity, that a wise God appeared who fostered the idea that science could be done and should be done. The Church understood there was a duty to understand God's handiwork, the better to marvel at it.

As for a time of barbarism, superstition, and widespread ignorance - there was no "Dark Ages." The march of progress was sure and steady, and sparked by the Christian concept of the world as an understandable creation following understandable laws which needed to be studied. The phrase, "Dark Ages," was a myth, first used in the early 19th century by atheists to claim credit for a sudden "enlightenment" that occurred against the Church's wishes. In fact it was the Church that fostered science. Quintus Tertullian instructed in the second century, "Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason — nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason." The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.

Yet, every good Liberal knows Gibbons wrote The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and blamed the Fall of Rome and the rise of barbarism on Christianity. Historians disagree - yet the schools still distort the truth. The New Columbia Encyclopedia (1975) says the term "Dark Ages" is no longer used by historians because this era is no longer thought to have been so dim. The Encyclopedia Britannica concurs.

During the era of Classical Greece, neoPlatonism originated, a philosophy which merged Plato's philosophy with Indian pantheism. Plotinus taught that the world was an "emanation" or radiation of being from a nonpersonal Spirit or Absolute--somewhat as light is a radiation from the sun. This is New-Age religion. The Godhead is unknowable, pure and good; the farther away one is the more evil and base. This religion only subscibes to ascetic practices that suppress bodily desires that liberate the spirit and alloes it to be reassorbed into the infinite essence. Through the years, Neo-Platonism has become a a mystical religion, crafted in part to counter Christianity. In some aspects it has merged with Christianity.

But here we are... products of strong disinformation that tells us religion engenders ignorance and is anti-science - when true history claims Christianity is the single catalyst that sparked and promoted science. A famous poll taken in Darwin's day found that almost all celebrated scientists, including Darwin, were deeply religious. Eighty-four years later, the same poll showed exactly the same results. Modern scientists are profoundly religious.
(10-18-2012, 01:27 PM)WmLambert Wrote: From my reading of history, The term "Dark Ages" is a later-day title bestowed on a time in Europpe because the atheist intelligensia wanted to denigrate religious believers as vapid dupes wrapped up in magical preachments that allow bigotry, bias, and hatred to flourish in the name of Church and God. After all, hasn't religion been the root cause of all wars throughout history, and the cause of the Dark ages that destroyed civilization, until Liberal elites appeared, giving birth to the Rennaissance?

Try reading what scholars of the time had to say on the matter. You will find some of them in the first and mostly the last link. It was one, or more, impactors which initiated the era, and caused the darkness. The rest was just 'add-on'.

Why do so many people keep discounting celestial impacts, no matter the evidence? I'm always amazed that so many supposedly brilliant intellectuals, haven't the ability to use their gray matter for something other than a seat cushion.

(10-18-2012, 01:27 PM)WmLambert Wrote: From my reading of history, The term "Dark Ages" is a later-day title bestowed on a time in Europpe because the atheist intelligensia wanted to denigrate religious believers as vapid dupes wrapped up in magical preachments that allow bigotry, bias, and hatred to flourish in the name of Church and God.

It would be best if the "Dark Ages" posts were split off...

OK... close, but not exactly right. The term is a reflection of the fact (or historians' belief) that the level of theoretical knowledge during the Dark Ages was inferior to the Ancient World and only matched it by the 16th century. The term was originally used in Latin (saeculum obscurum) and was introduced by Caesar Baronius, a cardinal and a church historian -- so perhaps not an atheist, and perhaps not agenda-driven. And circa 1600 when the term was first used, there were not many atheists around.

And, yes, Christianity was indeed faulted for this, and one can make several interesting observations here:

1. Notice that the level of applied knowledge (technology) does not show the same pattern at all, military history for example shows steady progress. -- not plausible once one thinks about this.

2. Notice that Islam was being praised for the "Islamic Renaissance" while Christianity was blamed for Dark Ages plus resisting the "European Renaissance" (even if many figures of the latter had very obvious Church connections!).-- political agenda here, and the origins of the Atheists' liking of Islam.

3. But most importantly, the premise of the Ancient World and then the Islamic Renaissance possessing more knowledge than the Medieval Europe is based on forgeries, in many cases immediately obvious. (I really should translate a couple of examples from Morozov one day).
Sodomia delenda est

OK, here is a really interesting question.

In 1600, the term "Dark Ages" had nothing to do with condemning the Church.
In 1800, it already acquired its "modern" meaning.

Question: who, when and why made the change?

There are I think two possible answers: (1) Atheists (well, more likely related species, with Voltaire et al being high on the list of suspects) and (2) Protestants (driven by an anti-Catholic agenda rather than anti-Christian).

I'd be very curious to know the truth here, right now I see both answers as equally probable.

Notice that dating the change of the meaning should give most of the answer: if it happened in the 17th century, I'd suspect Protestants, but an 18th century change would point at Atheists.
Sodomia delenda est

Its interesting how things in history start out from one particular thing, and finally end up attributed to another, or others. This case of 'Dark Ages' is the classic example. And this is why there are so many references to things celestial throughout history, which seem to receive only passing glances. Yet the references are there with a little digging, as shown by written reports from scholars around the world.

And it always comes back to the same thing. Almost without fail, the answer is 'Impactors', coming from within the solar system. Mass extinctions, and continual hits from space keep receiving the 'bum's rush' as though it is just too hard to comprehend. Yet the evidence is alway there, if people just take the time to study things closely.

The simple truth is that, at the time, the phrase "Dark Age", or phrases resembling this, were coined as a result of an Impactor either hitting the planet, or detonating in the atmosphere, or both, causing debris to shield the sun's rays from reaching the surface of the planet.

Everything else is just 'piling on', on to something that was not understood at the time. Hence the rise of superstition and attempts to answer something not understood, with something more 'down to earth' that was comprehensible. No matter how much people will keep trying to come up with fancy reasons, when all the dust finally settles(pun intended), a celestial cause is going to win the day.

Shoemaker-Levy9 is on official record, and will never go away,.....ever again. And if parts of a comet can do that to Jupiter, it can damned well do it to this planet with far more effect. Learn it, live it, and accept it.

I reviewed the links, and agree that impactors can spit up a fairly short-lived darkening that lowers temperature. The term "Dark Ages" was not used to cover a 900+ year climatological event.

Historians that I have read, say conclusively that "[the term 'Dark Ages'] was first used in the early 19th century by atheists to claim credit for a sudden "enlightenment" that occurred against the Church's wishes." The ages may have been intermittently dark due to impactors here and there, but the term is relatively new. Caesar Baronius in 1602 coined the term to refer specifically to a time in the 9th and 10th century to mark a political upheaval. The term was revived in later times for different usage.
OK... I was only guessing/remembering yesterday, now some ref checking. From :

Quote:The Latin term media tempestas (middle time) first appears in 1469.[4] The term medium aevum (Middle Ages) is first recorded in 1604.[4] "Medieval" first appears in the 19th century and is an Anglicised form of medium aevum.[5]
The terms Medieval and Middle Ages imply that the period was one of intellectual and artistic inferiority....

As for the Protestant connection,
Quote:During the Reformations of the 16th and 17th centuries, Protestants generally followed the critical views expressed by Humanists, but for additional reasons. They saw classical antiquity as a golden time, not only because of the Latin literature, but because it was the early beginnings of Christianity. The intervening 1000 year Middle Age was a time of darkness, not only because of lack of secular Latin literature, but because of corruption within the Church such as Popes who ruled as kings, pagan superstitions with saints relics, celibate priesthood, and institutionalized moral hypocrisy.

So I suspect that the meaning evolved from "shiite happened" to "Roman church at fault" to "Christianity at fault", but it would be difficult to find the precise dates, this was likely a continuous evolution.

Now, of dates. You are correct about Baronius referring to a very narrow period initially (you are incorrect about the reasons: what upheaval in 9-10th centuries?). I don't see this too important, since the precise duration of the period is not set in stone, it is the concept of a lengthy setback that matters most. At some point Baronius narrow concept got merged with Bruni's Middle Ages.

And keeping in mind that the issue was intensely political, read this:


as for the impactors: yes, Iunior/Rhesus Impact consequences should not be underestimated. S13
Sodomia delenda est

From that link: "However, from the mid-20th century onwards, other historians became critical of even this nonjudgmental use of the term for two main reasons.[10] First, it is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "Dark Ages" effectively in a neutral way; scholars may intend this, but it does not mean that ordinary readers will so understand it. Second, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages, which 20th-century scholarship has achieved,[39] means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians avoid it altogether."
No argument here, but also from the above link (good one, right?) :
Quote:Films and novels often use the term "Dark Age" with its implied meaning of a time of backwardness. The 2007 television show The Dark Ages from The History Channel called the Dark Ages "600 years of degenerate, godless, inhuman behavior".[42]

Sodomia delenda est

Of course. The Dickson quote I used earlier nails it. He was an atheist who wanted to disparage the opponents for his college Presidency job, and his made-up quote about Columbus being refused because the Church thought the world was flat made it into ALL the textbooks used in every schools - as well as the lies by Sadler. Schoolbooks repeated lies and the students accepted them as fact. This is a large part of the belief system Liberals and Progressives use.

Schoolbooks repeated the historical works of John L. and Barbara Hammond, who influenced all the school books that followed. They relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Carles Dickens' novels helped to codify this image.

Would modern day Liberals feel less secure promoting big government to solve social and economic problems, if they knew in their hearts that what they learned as children was a lie? An historical review by Dr. Burton W. Folsom points out that
Quote:Mr. Sadler, we know today, lied in his report. He was a member of Parliament and made up much of his report to gain support for a bill he wanted to see Parliament pass. Economist W. H. Hutt has described Sadler's falsification of evidence. Even Friedrich Engels, comrade of Karl Marx, concluded that "Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his noble enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."
"Dark Ages" is a term applied by Protestants historically to the era of Papal supremacy, when the Bible was kept from the people and the Inquisition tortured and killed anyone who disputed the authority of the Papacy, which in turn led to the "Thirty Years War," where Catholic armies sought to eradicate the entire populations of countries that embraced Protestantism. ("Better a desert than a land full of heretics," stated the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.)

There was nothing enlightened or enlightening about a religio-political system that launched the utter idiocy of "The Children's Crusade."
I'm moving this from 'Science' to 'Religion', because everyone, myself excluded, thinks the title comes from everyone's religious beliefs, one way or the other.


Actually, it fits History best; even the religious component (btw, thanks Ron for the confirmation) comes from contemporary politics.

As for the impacts: there is some evidence that climate shifts affected development during the "dark ages", and more than once. There is however no solid evidence that impacts occurred during any period of human history.
Sodomia delenda est

Climate change is one thing. The term "Dark Ages" is another. Impactors surely caused bad weather - and The plague also helped decimate population.

Understanding it was a purposeful and disinformational tool of the Left is useful to know, though.
(10-20-2012, 07:29 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Climate change is one thing. The term "Dark Ages" is another. Impactors surely caused bad weather - and The plague also helped decimate population.

There is actually a theory that ties the plague to a climate change caused by an impact.. too lazy to look for refs and the proof was lacking anyway.
Sodomia delenda est


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The tree man and the celestial smile quadrat 1 617 12-25-2008, 06:20 PM
Last Post: Ron Lambert

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)