So in your mind there are only two types of people, Christians and Bad Guys?

ronsfi on June 29, 2008 at 8:20 PM

No. I was using the phrase ironically. The term ‘bad guys’ is like something from a ’50s police caper film. I probably shouldn’t have used it as these threads are emotional enough as it is and everything is taken the wrong way. I am trying to argue against calling people names as that is not warranted. I gave our to r4l about this and he was not impressed.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 8:45 PM

“[F]acilitated adaptation” and “darwinian evolution” would be an oxymoron.

R4L. I’m confused about where you stand. Are you A or B? Are you arguing with yourself? Have you already had a coupld beers too many?

davidk on June 29, 2008 at 8:51 PM

here’s a quote from Ronsfi the Holy from the fourth page:

The reason you quit going round and round on these threads is because you get your ass handed to you every time. If you think I waste any time analyzing your vapid ejections as if it were Joyce, then you are more sadly deluded then I guessed.

ronsfi on June 27, 2008 at 8:20 PM

but its only those who attack the most holy darwin who are full of hate, bitterness and vile

right

as soon as you darwiniacs start complaining about christians, being ‘nasty’ I know its another in a long line of atheistic lies.

not buying it for a moment.

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 8:53 PM

Speaking of hate.

Blarg the Destroyer on June 29, 2008 at 8:52 PM

speaking of lies and stupidity, you rank right up there sonny!!

oh I know disparaging His HOLINESS DARWIN is a hate-crime to you darwiniacs..

I assume you will soon denouce ronsfi in the strongest terms for saying the things he did in that quote I posted….

sure ya will!!!! *smirk*

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 8:54 PM

R4l. I never said that there wasn’t hatred and vile comments spewed towards you. Most of what I saw was in response to your actions. I disagree with them, whole-heartedly, because it brings them down to your level.

Go back and read your comments. You claim to be a Christian, why don’t you start acting like one and treating others with some respect.

Blarg the Destroyer on June 29, 2008 at 8:55 PM

Blarg the Destroyer on June 29, 2008 at 8:55 PM

I didn’t know I was in the presence of HOLINESS

I didn’t realize you get to judge me!!!

have you told Jesus you’re taking care of His job for Him??

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 8:57 PM

You claim to be a Christian, why don’t you start acting like one and treating others with some respect.

Blarg the Destroyer on June 29, 2008 at 8:55 PM

yeah I’ve noticed anytime you disagree with the gay agenda, the darwiniac agenda, any left-wing agenda, you are immediately accused of hatred

and of course with hate-crimes legislation looming…anyone who really is a christian, and refused to bow down to the agenda of the left, will of course be a criminal….

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Blarg the Destroyer on June 29, 2008 at 8:55 PM

I guess your righteous anger only extends to me…you couldn’t seem to denounce ronsfi…why am I not surprised??

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 9:04 PM

RightOFLeft on June 29, 2008 at 9:04 PM

So you’re *gasp* an evolutionist?

davidk on June 29, 2008 at 9:06 PM

and of course with hate-crimes legislation looming…anyone who really is a christian, and refused to bow down to the agenda of the left, will of course be a criminal….

Pretty much. Won’t be as bad as Nero but enough to worry about the future. I’m an EU citizen and as the EU monitor and record all online activity so they probably have enough “evidence” of “racism” to convict me of this postmodern crime.

Say a prayer for the Christians in North Korea who are tortured by having molten steel poured on them.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 9:06 PM

I am not accusing you of hatred because you disagree with the reasons you listed. I am accusing you of hatred because of what you have written and the manner in which you have behaved yourself.

Blarg the Destroyer on June 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM

if you haven’t figured it out by now, what you think of me, matters not at all to me. sorry.

I am accusing you of hatred, because you hate me..and its rather obvious. you’re ‘righteous’ outrage doesn’t extend to anyone else.

perhaps you’ve seen that I oppose gay marriage, evolution, the entire agenda of the left. so when people like you accuse me of ‘hatred’…I take it with a large grain of salt…because its the SOP of the left. anyone who disagrees is ‘hateful’

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 9:10 PM

I wonder where the evos get their ethics with which they judge us “haters.”

davidk on June 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM

anyone who disagrees with the left is ‘hateful’

and soon, with hate crimes, we will be criminals for not thinking correctly….

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 9:11 PM

perhaps you’ve seen that I oppose … evolution, … .
right4life on June 29, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Whew.

davidk on June 29, 2008 at 9:13 PM

What if you’re a preterist?

davidk on June 29, 2008 at 9:14 PM

one way or the other, Jesus wins in the end…and thats all that counts…although the preterists tend to dislike quite a bit, those who hold other views…

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 9:17 PM

r4l…I love you.

ronsfi on June 29, 2008 at 9:33 PM

Well, my post from several hours ago still has not appeared, so to summarize quickly for right4life:

1) The sources you provide are irrelevant to the topic at hand, or you simply ignore what they say. Specifically:
- You claimed that the article you posted disproved my assertion on the nature of infanticide at this period. In fact, it supports exactly what I said. Infanticide was an accepted part of Roman culture, and common in the barbarian societies (children considered weak, crippled, extraneous, sickly or otherwise a drain on the family, they were exposed… and this tradition *did* exist in Jewish culture at the time). Christianity was opposed to the practice, but evidence from the High Middle Ages is that the practice began to die out only then as the Church assumed a more dominant, everyday role. During the Dark Ages, this was not the case, and was my original contention.
- Your examples of the Church’s stance on euthanasia and suicide are irrelevant, because I was not talking about euthanasia (rather the less formal concept of patricide), and I myself in my first post pointed out that this was uncommon, simply because few commoners lived to such ages in the first place.
- Finally, as I tore apart in my second post, and you carefully ignored thereafter, your other “examples” to support your bizarre contention either occurred well after the Dark Age, or embodied precisely what I was talking about.

2) Your examples of Muslim aggression, unsurprisingly, are not put in context. As Islam expanded by the sword and by clever diplomacy, it began by conquering the Persian Empire, and pushing the Byzantines out of eastern Turkey, and then what was left of post-Roman civilization in Egypt. From there it was the howling wilderness of North Africa, and thence to the island of Sicily and small parts of southern Italy that Rome did not have the strength to contest…. and finally, to Iberia, where they rolled over the barely settled tribes of the region. They were stopped in the east by Byzantium, and in the West by Charles Martel at Poiters (which I addressed in my second post rather explicitly). At that point, internal fracturing over the dhimmitude of Turks and the succession of Mohammed halted their expansion for a time. A second invasion of France was a fiasco, as were several more forays against the Byzantines and the Indian Rajputs and Vijayanagar Empire who blocked Islamic expansion (apart from trade) across the Indus. The rest of the period, and the events you list, amounted to corsair piracy based in North Africa… and trend that did not end until the nineteenth century. Following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, the Frankish states and Spanish kingdoms looked to their borders, and began the Reconquista, which is the first time the Muslims were made a deliberate target… *this*, it could be loosely argued, was a defensive campaign. In 1074, when Gregory VII called for soldiers to assist the Byzantines, his call was *rejected* by most of Europe. But with Sicily and Italy regained, and the Moors beginning to be pushed back, the call of Urban II in 1096 was delivered at precisely the right time. But the aim was not defensive, any more than the initial Islamic expansion was defensive. The Muslims had a crusading goal which coincided nicely with territory, loot, and slaves. The First Crusade had a crusading goal which also coincided nicely with territory, loot, slaves (oh yes, Christians kept slaves at this time, though often from pagan regions of wild lands beyond Hungary… the first European slaves were slavs), and a very useful outlet for dynastic strains at home.

The excesses of the Crusades (and of Islamic occupation and coastal raids) is all well documented. But then, I supposed you’d have been cheerfully at the forefront of Peter the Hermit’s People’s Crusade, leading 40,000 peasants to their deaths in Turkey, trusting on God to save you.

E1701 on June 29, 2008 at 9:40 PM

I didn’t single out others, I singled out you. Not because of malice, nor hatred. I couldn’t care less one way or another about you. I singled you out because your lines of attack (ad hominems), your straw men arguements, etc. seemed to me to be so over the top, regardless of sides, that you mentioned special warrant.

first of all thats a lie. I don’t engage in straw man arguments…if you want to argue against me, then be prepared, and have some backup for what you say. becuase I do. and as far as ‘over the top’ get a life.

, I already responded that it seemed, to me, that they were all in response to your initial bomb-throwing

again, this just proves you are a liar.

regarding judgement. If a man isn’t allowed to judge another man in his deeds, why is their a judicial system?

but I haven’t done any deeds…these are words but I know your mentality, and I was correct in my assessment…anything that disagrees with the left is a ‘hate crime’ thanks for proving me correct!!

I believe that you have acted in a very hateful manner to those who disagree with you. Does that mean I hate you or your beliefs, no. Quite the opposite. I love the fact that you have the right to express yourself freely and passionately.

this is really interesting…you attack me for expressing myself, not for any deeds or actions, then you say you ‘love’ my right to express myself, but you wish to silence me. is it cognitive dissonance? don’t think so…rather the flawed ‘logic’ of the left.

I just wish that you wouldn’t call people names who disagree with you. I don’t know, but to me, that just doesn’t seem very, Christian.

since you’re so high and mighty, sitting in judgment over me, post your proof. and I’ll defend myself…but thats not what this is all about.

and you know I don’t mind when someone calls me names, but then they should expect it back. I’m not as ’sensitive’ as you on the left are.

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Blarg the Destroyer on June 29, 2008 at 9:36 PM

The Prophet Elijah mocked the prophet of Baal when their god didn’t perform. He said, “Maybe your god is out taking a dump.”

Is that hateful? Course he wasn’t technically a Christian.

If one cannot stand the heat, he/she should stay out of the HOT air.

davidk on June 29, 2008 at 9:44 PM

It’s not meant to explain the origins of life. I don’t want to say “it cannot,” because that gives the false impression that this is somehow a failure of the theory of evolution. Evolution has some limited implications on how the first life might have looked, but it really has nothing to do with how that life got here.

RightOFLeft on June 29, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Well from my view, evolution cannot hope to explain the origin of life. I am pleased to see more and more evolutionist backing away from the origin question. I note that evolutionist have been forced to this position, they certainly have not gone there gracefully. There was far too much talk of the lighting bolt and the mud puddle to pretend evolution never wanted to address that area.

This is where the ID model will be helpful. Kids won’t be left without a single answer to that question. The ID model can answer the origin question, there was a designer.

(reply to the second part of your post coming in a minute)

Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 9:53 PM

E1701 on June 29, 2008 at 9:40 PM

did you even read your link?? you say that what I post supports you….uh english is fundamental…

The notion that infanticide was “rampant” in the Middle Ages has been used to bolster the equally erroneous concept that medieval families had no affection for their children. A dark and dreadful picture has been painted of thousands of unwanted babes suffering horrible fates at the hands of remorseless and cold-hearted parents.

There is absolutely no evidence to support such carnage.

Your examples of the Church’s stance on euthanasia and suicide are irrelevant, because I was not talking about euthanasia (rather the less formal concept of patricide), and I myself in my first post pointed out that this was uncommon, simply because few commoners lived to such ages in the first place

this is another lie….this was what you posted:

would at times be driven into the forests for the wolves, or starved to death if the family couldn’t support them without starving themselves.

did you even read what you wrote???

) Your examples of Muslim aggression, unsurprisingly, are not put in context

you must be deluded or a dhimmi. islam conquered north africa, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Turkey, Spain…all christian lands…

you totally ignore muslim atrocities…and we haven’t even talked about what they did in india…

The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that �the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history�.

link

The rest of the period, and the events you list, amounted to corsair piracy based in North Africa

conquering siciliy..cutting off france from Italy? attacking and taking Italain towns…its very hard to have a rational conversation with you….you live in a dream world.

you really are a dhimmi…

If your image of Western civilization relies on a depiction of the Crusades as an insane and bloodthirsty attack on a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world, then you are not going to like what recent historians have to say. This is apparent in some of the responses to these new works. In a New Yorker review of the books by Asbridge and Phillips, the journalist Joan Acocella seemed a little miffed by what she found coming out of the academy. How can two professional historians talk of piety, devotion, and selflessness as Crusader motivations? “Does this mean that Asbridge and Phillips think the Crusades were OK?” she asks incredulously. No, it means they think it is their job as historians to uncover the truth. Acocella speaks approvingly of the much older works by Runciman and John Julius Norwich, who is no historian. The entry of scholars into popular Crusade history does not seem to be welcomed in all quarters.

As the title suggests, Thomas Asbridge’s The First Crusade: A New History begins at the beginning. The First Crusade was called in 1095 by Pope Urban II in response to an urgent plea for assistance from the Byzantine Empire, the last Christian state in the East. Things had been going badly for Christians for several centuries, ever since the explosion of Muslim warriors out of Arabia in the seventh century. Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa…the core of the Christian world…had been conquered by Muslim jihad warriors and subjected to Islamic rule and law. When Turkish jihad warriors invaded and conquered Asia Minor, they reduced Christendom to a tiny corner of the world.

link

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Blarg the Destroyer on June 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM

still waiting for your righteous outrage at anyone else….

no surprise….

nor am I surprised that you don’t want me to defend myself….after all since you are judging me, its only fair that I can defend myself.

and I’m really not surprised that you ran out of here with your tail between your legs…you’re a typical left-wing wacko…when confronted about your baseless lies, and charges…you can’t back them up.

pathetic.

right4life on June 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM

The experiments you’re talking about didn’t have a chance to begin with, that’s my point. You can’t create the necessary conditions for evolution in the lab. You can do some interesting experiments to show the plausibility of evolution, e.g. digital lifeforms, longitudinal studies of bacterial colonies, facilitated adaptation, and others. The best evidence for evolution is still the forensic evidence, e.g. the progression of fossils, correlations between predicted relatedness and genome, statistical gene analysis, and others.

See Ken Miller for the best discussion on this. He’s written a couple of books on theistic evolution, just so you know you don’t have to get your evolution information from Richard Dawkins.

RightOFLeft on June 29, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Well I promise you I will look over the web and see what I can find of Ken Miller’s writings. I’m not going to buy any of his books until I am convinced he has something worthwhile to say. This might seem biased (which it is) but I bet he talks the same old dribble, mutations, natural selection and billions of years. But I will see what I can find of him.

Concerning the fruit fly experiments again. You say you can’t produce the conditions for evolution in a lab. Why not? You have a fast replicating bug, you induce lots of mutations. Maybe natural selection can’t be reproduced, but it can only select from the information in the genes that is ALREADY available, so no problem.

You say their intent was NOT to make fruit flies evolve but that seems to be the company line from evolutionist only since the experiments have FAILED. Consider these quotes.

“Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory …” Nilsson, p. 1186.

“In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.” Goldschmidt, p. 94.

“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.” Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

“Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Hitching, p. 61.

“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.” Grassé, p. 130.

Hitching say they were devising ways to try and change fruit flies. So clearly at least the men involved thought that was what they were suppose to be doing.

The only argument ID makes that might have some merit is the statistical argument that mutation and sexual selection can’t introduce adaptations fast enough to account for the observed speciation. But Dembski just takes a half-assed pass at doing the math to even begin to show this. I have more on this, but I wanted to let you know I’m still looking over the posts. I think if you see the difference between how scientists look at the math of population genetics and how ID (Dembski, really) approaches the same problem you’ll see why his argument doesn’t deserve the prominence it’s been given.

Irreducible complexity isn’t even worth talking about. Evolutionary processes can easily produce irreducibly complex systems.

RightOFLeft on June 29, 2008 at 8:40 PM

My friend, if you think non-thinking evolution can easily produce something that is Irreducible complex you are just fooling yourself. Imagine taking the DNA code for a given animal and replacing it with random data. What would you get? Nothing that would live, that’s for sure.

Consider an elephant, how much of an elephant’s DNA code do you suppose is devoted to instructing the growth of it’s trunk? I don’t know, but you can bet it’s a huge chunk of data. To say a large sum of data like that just comes out of thin air is to invoke spontaneous generation again. And I know you don’t believe in that.

Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM

I admit that I cultivated a sincere dislike for r4l over these many threads but once it dawned on me that this was a person in grave and serious anguish I could no longer take pleasure in tweaking his nose. It’s just cruel. We may vehemently disagree but I love each of you as my fellows in humanity and so cannot take advantage of someones emotional state in order to prove a point. Anyone reading this thread is able to make up their own minds regarding each other. My opinion means nothing. I just want to assure you that once my eyes were opened I was sincere in my attempt to reach out to another human being. I don’t think I am alone in this.

ronsfi on June 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM

The ID model can answer the origin question, there was a designer.
Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 9:53 PM

It doesn’t answer the origin question, it just pushes it one step farther away. There would have had to be an origin for the designer. Or would you have us to believe that we are too complex to have come into existence without help, but a being sophisticated enough to design us would not be?

backwoods conservative on June 29, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Although I would not exactly phrase things the way r4Life does, I am glad he is here fighting the good fight.

Rose on June 29, 2008 at 10:24 PM

And not just Mr. Life, but others too. I get too exasperated at the lack of civility that atheists bring to these discussions to partake, but I am glad there are others who are willing to stick with it.

Rose on June 29, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Unfortunately I’ve got to call it a night without getting in a couple of points I wanted to. Probably we should just call it a thread, anyway. It’s odd that you think biologists are backing away from the origin question, it’s the creationists who’ve conflated evolution with biogenesis.

RightOFLeft on June 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM

I’m getting close to calling it a night too, got to work tomorrow. Have a good night!!

Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM

ronsfi on June 29, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Let’s see, what should my answer be. OK, I’ve got it. YES

Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 10:35 PM

Yes, but by the current definition of species, if two populations are reproductively isolated, they do in fact constitute two different species. This is who animals that are extremely similar, even to the point of *ability* to breed successfully, are still separate species.

E1701 on June 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM

OK, I hope you see now why I don’t like to use the term species. It’s because scientist can change to boundaries at will. I am defending from the standpoint that evolution cannot change one “kind” into another. Were “Kind” is defined as animals that can breed with each other.

it is likely that the restoration of a “normal” diet would once again combine into a single population

E1701 on June 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM

I would think it also probably that if they merged the population of flies by two’s that are said not to breed, that in reality, when no other choice was available, they might very well breed. That’s why I need to research this more to answer those types of questions.

Based on biological evidence, we are joined by h. sapiens neanderthalensis and h. sapiens idaltu, and several potentials represented by fragmentary fossil findings that appear to have developed from common ancestors in conditions that were foistered from geographical reproductive isolation.

E1701 on June 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM

Concerning Neanderthals, you might want to listen to a few of the audios to see what you think. Dr. Jack Cuozzo has actually inspected many of the fossils of Neanderthals which is a rare thing. He says they had more cranium capacity than we do, could speak and lived to be very old. Very interesting stuff.

it’s further possible that reproductive isolation in wildly different environments had begun to differentiate the species still further (producing the negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid haplogroups)

E1701 on June 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM

You are not suggesting that the “races” represent different species of man are you? But I would agree that adaptation and gene selection is responsible for the various races. Yet, there is only one race, the human race.

Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 11:00 PM

It’s odd that you think biologists are backing away from the origin question, it’s the creationists who’ve conflated evolution with biogenesis.

RightOFLeft on June 29, 2008 at 10:08 PM

Actually it was E1701 that first stated evolution did not address the origin problem (lose quote). But then YOY answered and seemed to agree, so I answered you the same way I would have answered E1701.

If you are NOW saying that evolution CAN address the origin of life, then how do you do that without evoking spontaneous generation?

Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 11:11 PM

did you even read your link?? you say that what I post supports you….uh english is fundamental…

Obviously you did not even read the specific page I linked to, which went into greater detail: “In the fourth century, Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, and many Barbarian tribes had begun to convert, as well. Under the influence of the Christian Church, which saw the practice as a sin, western European attitudes towards infanticide began to change. More and more children were baptized shortly after birth, giving the child an identity and a place in the community, and making the prospect of deliberately killing him an altogether different matter. This does not mean that infanticide was eradicated overnight throughout Europe. But, as was often the case with Christian influence, over time ethical outlooks altered, and the idea of killing an unwanted infant was more commonly viewed as horrific.”

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying. And evidence of greater weight than an unsourced document on about.com places the continuance of infanticide as a regular practice well into the twelfth century, when the Church finally began to address the issue directly through orphanages and monasteries, and then when the Black Death nearly crashed the growing European economy. But you seem to have issues distinguishing between different periods in history, and between official sanction and actual practice. Infanticide is also illegal in China (state mandated abortions, sterilizations, et al are a different story), but is still commonly practiced with baby girls who present a burden on a family which cannot even offset this cost with a future male child, thanks to the one-baby rule.

this is another lie….this was what you posted:

How can the unofficial commoner consideration of expulsion of the crippled/elderly *possibly* be considered euthanasia? Such patricidal practices, again, do not even qualify under the term “aggressive euthanasia.” Which I repeat from the very block you quoted: “occurred at times.” I further added that this was uncommon because of short life expectancies… few people reached the age where that was an issue unless they were clergy or noble, and then they didn’t need such practices as they could afford to support the elderly.

you must be deluded or a dhimmi. islam conquered north africa, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Turkey, Spain…all christian lands
you totally ignore muslim atrocities…and we haven’t even talked about what they did in india…

1) North Africa and Egypt were *marginally* Christian. The center of African Christianity was Ethopia, which is only seeing Muslim pressure in the last *century*. Even Byzantium could not call Egypt truly Orthodox in the major cities like Alexandria, let alone throughout the province. Most of North Africa, was effectively wilderness, as much pagan as Christian. The “holy land” was again, only partially Christian… it was a heady mix of Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, pagan, and Jew. It had been alternately ruled by the Orthodox Byzantines, pagan Persian Sassanids, and very briefly by the Byzantines again before it was lost to the Muslims. Calling that “Christian controlled” is barely short of delusional. Turkey was Orthodox, but not entirely (Islam the religion tended to spread faster than their armies), and Spain was Christian in the sense that the Visigoths who settled there had mostly converted when the Moors invaded. Byzantium would not totally fall to the Muslim advance until 1453. The Balkans were never fully under Muslim control, and their attempts in that Renaissance Age to invade Europe from the east were pure fiascos (which was lucky for future history, since the Europeans couldn’t stop their infighting long enough to mount a concerted defense).

2) My discussion is shaped by my opposition. Were I debating with a fanatic Muslim who attempted to distort history to put Islam in a kindly revisionist light, I could go into great detail on the Muslim slave trade, the treatment of dhimmis and Jews, their actions in India and the atrocities committed in the course of their expansion, infighting, and reform, to say nothing of the use of janissaries.

But as I’m debating a fanatic Christian who is attempting to distort history to put Christianity of the same period into a kindly revisionist light, my focus is resting there… so I can discuss the sack of Constantinople, the atrocities of the crusaders in Christian Hungary, the massacre of the fall of Jerusalem, and the betrayal and selling into Muslim servitude and death of the Children’s Crusade… by Christians.

This matter is not helped by the fact that the Islamic world was in ascendency, culturally and militarily, and began a Golden Age of science, reason, and civilization building even as Europe was launching the Crusades from the comparatively squalid and fetid kingdoms of Europe. Were we discussing the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance instead, I would be comparing a declining and degrading Islamic world to a European rebirth of art, architecture, science, culture, and civilization-building.

You picked the wrong fight.

conquering siciliy..cutting off france from Italy? attacking and taking Italain towns…its very hard to have a rational conversation with you….you live in a dream world.

Can you give me a reason beyond your fanatic hatred of Muslims for why you consider these piratic acts wildly beyond the pale compared to say… I dunno, the viking sack of Paris, constant raids and depredations upon the coasts of the Baltic and North Sea, the colonization and massacres that established the first cities of Ireland and Scotland?

It was not defensive in the literal sense of protecting a European territory from a Muslim invasion. But the Muslims were torturing Christians in their slow-motion conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire and it was/is incumbent upon other Christians to come to the rescue of their fellow believers.

Which they did by pillaging Christian Hungary, sacking Constantinople, permanently crippling the Byzantine Empire, and chopping the conquered regions up into semi-autonomous kingdoms that fought each other as much as they did the Muslims? Yeah, thanks for explaining that to me. *rolls eyes dramatically*

You/they probably do not consider the Islamisation of Europe as a threat to America and would consider a pre-emptive military endeavour against such a thing unjustified. Yet when Europe goes belly up you will probably have a chance to see your theory tested, truly tested. It will not be peer reviewed but it will involve the deaths of many people including lots of Americans.

The Islamisation of Europe is a problem indeed, and becomes more so each day, and each time the Europeans bow down to such demands. But the lesson to be learned from the Crusades is not for us to invade Europe, cripple their governments, sack their cities and industry, and generally destroy the continent to save it.

the europeans (christians) were barbarians into bloodshed and atrocities…
but you know the muslims killed 2 Million armenians…and have slaughtered hundreds of thousand of christians in the Sudan….
and you think they were more ’sophisticated’ in earlier times???

1) I repeat, I tailor my argument to my opposition. All of the rest of your accusations are just the latest additions to your strawman army.

2) We are discussing the Dark Ages here… you want to bitch about modern Islamic attitudes and actions, suit yourself… but that’s a red herring so large you can choke a whale with it.

E1701 on June 29, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Which they did by pillaging Christian Hungary, sacking Constantinople, permanently crippling the Byzantine Empire, and chopping the conquered regions up into semi-autonomous kingdoms that fought each other as much as they did the Muslims? Yeah, thanks for explaining that to me. *rolls eyes dramatically*

We all know that the Crusades were a total failure and the Crusaders turned on the Byzantines but you disputed the original justification for the war. When I point this out your response is to roll your eyes dramatically. You are not a Hollywood starlet (or are you?) so pointing out the disastrous results of the Crusades will not substitute for an argument that they were fundamentally immoral in design and purpose (and execution).

The Islamisation of Europe is a problem indeed, and becomes more so each day, and each time the Europeans bow down to such demands.

Yes.

But the lesson to be learned from the Crusades is not for us to invade Europe, cripple their governments, sack their cities and industry, and generally destroy the continent to save it.

Oh so you’re against the war on Serbia and the transfer of Kosovo from the Serbs to the Albanians? Good to hear it.

The real lesson to be learned from the Crusades, which the Crusaders learned too late, is that the Crusaders should have focused on Syria and split the Mulism world in two, shattering it completely.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 11:45 PM

It was not defensive in the literal sense of protecting a European territory from a Muslim invasion. But the Muslims were torturing Christians in their slow-motion conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire and it was/is incumbent upon other Christians to come to the rescue of their fellow believers.

I suppose the Crusaders are not eligible for retroactive UN approval.

Now imagine if you were a European and you saw your sister civillisation (the Eastern Roman Empire) being plundered and conquered by the Muslims. Sure its not a direct assault against your own territory but it would be traumatic nonetheless.

aengus on June 29, 2008 at 9:58 PM

I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
- Pope Urban II

MB4 on June 30, 2008 at 2:12 AM

Hitching say they were devising ways to try and change fruit flies. So clearly at least the men involved thought that was what they were suppose to be doing.

Maxx on June 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM

So does this imply that we are in fact using Intelligent Design to prove Evolution and thus disproving Intelligent Design?

jmarcure on June 30, 2008 at 6:43 AM

It doesn’t answer the origin question, it just pushes it one step farther away. There would have had to be an origin for the designer. Or would you have us to believe that we are too complex to have come into existence without help, but a being sophisticated enough to design us would not be?

backwoods conservative on June 29, 2008 at 10:12 PM

I would think that if one were to believe that it were possible for us to be created from non-life that they could extend that belief to another being that could have been created from non-life. The problem that the human race has always had is that we create our gods as flawed creatures constrained to human understand. In my opinion god is beyond human comprehension and quite possibly would not even be recognized as life by us. All life on earth is DNA based and we are just now scratching the surface of the complexity of DNA which to me coming from a software and hardware engineering background looks remarkably like a configuration file. We are just now scratching the surface of nanotechnology and bio technology but our DNA based life has massive amounts of things that seem to resemble both. Yes we are finding that life is far more complex then we ever imagined and that is the very reason why a theory developed 150 years ago is being questioned today. I do not find it difficult to imagine that a being we label as god may very well be complex beyond our comprehension and that we may exist in nothing more than god’s version of an aquarium. In my opinion evolution started as a theory to explain natural selection and species and is very good despite its problems. Unfortunately evolution has evolved into a pseudo religion that can not be questioned. I say this because we have 7 pages fighting about an established religion vs evolution vs the new kid ID. When was the last time we all went after each other over some other branch of science? Woops, forgot the old AWG but that really has the same problem as evolution in that it has become a religion.

jmarcure on June 30, 2008 at 7:19 AM

With exception to the name calling, most of the posts here show one thing: there is much reason to debate this topic and no reason why high school students may not discuss it in the classroom.
This topic usually gets a few hundred, sometimes well over a thousand, comments. Seems to prove the point quite nicely that the issue is still in doubt, which requires debate. Why not allow school children to enter that debate?

Send_Me on June 30, 2008 at 7:18 AM

In my opinion the problem arises from two groups, the believers in evolution and the believers in god wanting to dominate within society. Now just to be straight so that some folks don’t get their panties in a bunch; I am generalizing and don’t mean every single person alive, dead or born in the future that believes in evolution nor do I mean every single person alive, dead or born in the future that believes in god. Both sides are wrong with their methods and neither wants to give an inch or compromise in any meaningful way. Both sides fight dirty with over the top in your face attitudes and both want the complete and total destruction of the other in as painful and embarrassing way possible. This will never be a win win issue because neither side wants it to be. Other than politics the only other issues that even come close to the ridiculous fighting seen between evolution vs god is global warming and abortion which are also proxy wars between believers in god and non-believers.

jmarcure on June 30, 2008 at 7:40 AM

Obviously you did not even read the specific page I linked to, which went into greater detail:

I did read it, and even quoted from it. your attempt to ‘rewrite’ what you said is amusing but in vain.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying. And evidence of greater weight than an unsourced document on about.com places the continuance of infanticide as a regular practice well into the twelfth century,

not its not. you have been accusing the christians of infanticide and euthenasia…and your own article calls you a liar.

But you seem to have issues distinguishing between different periods in history

yeah you do too. you accuse the christians of being in the ‘dark ages’ but itwas christianity that eliminated the practice of euthenasia and abortion that the ‘noble enlightened’ greeks and romans practiced.

your hypocricy is rank.

again, from your own article:

The notion that infanticide was “rampant” in the Middle Ages has been used to bolster the equally erroneous concept that medieval families had no affection for their children. A dark and dreadful picture has been painted of thousands of unwanted babes suffering horrible fates at the hands of remorseless and cold-hearted parents.

There is absolutely no evidence to support such carnage.

you paint the same erroneous picture.

why are you so full of hatred for christianity that you would have to lie so?

right4life on June 30, 2008 at 9:15 AM

1) North Africa and Egypt were *marginally* Christian.

more lies….why because YOU say so??

The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim’s (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France.

I believe that if I had the time, I could show that the Muslims, in their western imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquests, killed two to three times as many Christians as the Christians killed Muslims in all of the Crusades combined.

link

it was a heady mix of Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, pagan, and Jew

a