Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 Did the middle ages exist?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1213 Posts

Posted - 11/09/2009 :  11:41:48  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dr. Niemitz theorizes 300 years of the middle ages did not exist and has proof.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. Jn 3:18

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 11/09/2009 :  12:00:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Wow what a doozie! This is a new 'hypothesis' for me I need some time to absorb it I thinks.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 11/09/2009 :  14:23:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
More information.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 11/09/2009 :  14:50:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

More information.
Reading the objections there, it seems to me that the New Chronology is BS, built upon quote-mining, unsupported conspiracy theories, poor scholarship, ignoring absolute dating evidence, and wishful thinking. Pretty much the same methods as those that are used by the YECs.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/09/2009 14:52:03
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13312 Posts

Posted - 11/09/2009 :  18:05:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dr. Hans Ulrich Niemitz seems to have some opinions about medicine too.

"The Germanic/German New Medicine a new Natural Science"
by Professor Dr. Hans Ulrich Niemitz


According to the criteria of natural science, the German New Medicine, given today’s scientific understanding and today’s best knowledge, must be declared to be correct. On the other hand, conventional medicine is an amorphous mixture of misunderstood (assumed) facts that are not even deniable, and therefore beyond even the possibility of verification. Given the criteria of natural science and given that it is merely a jumble of hypotheses, and in addition, unscientific, conventional medicine should be designated to be false.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2009 :  03:45:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

Dr. Hans Ulrich Niemitz seems to have some opinions about medicine too.

"The Germanic/German New Medicine a new Natural Science"
by Professor Dr. Hans Ulrich Niemitz


According to the criteria of natural science, the German New Medicine, given today’s scientific understanding and today’s best knowledge, must be declared to be correct. On the other hand, conventional medicine is an amorphous mixture of misunderstood (assumed) facts that are not even deniable, and therefore beyond even the possibility of verification. Given the criteria of natural science and given that it is merely a jumble of hypotheses, and in addition, unscientific, conventional medicine should be designated to be false.


"Germanic New Medicine." Am I alone in feeling that phrase has a somewhat scary nationalistic sound to it, even beyond its woo? I mean, does this new medicine only work on pure Germans?

(And yes, sorry, but I admit am probably more sensitive to such stuff coming from Germans than from others. I think of it as being attuned to the echoes of history.)

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/10/2009 03:48:28
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4953 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2009 :  14:50:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I read through some of this paper and was particularly curious about one of the arguments:
In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII started the so-called ‘Gregorian calendar’, which is basically a corrected version of the old Julian calendar of Julius Caesar. The Julian calendar, after being used for a long time, no longer corresponded with the astronomical situation. The difference, according to calculations by Pope Gregory, amounted to 10 days. Now please calculate: how many Julian years does it take to produce an error of 10 days? The answer is 1257 years. The question – at which date was the Julian calendar correct – can be calculated with the following amazing result (Illig 1991):

1582 – 1257 = 325
(The year in which the “Gregorian” calendar began minus the years necessary to produce 10 days of error in the Julian calendar equals the beginning the Julian calendar.)


It seems, unbelievably, that Caesar introduced his calendar in 325 AD. This is unbelievable
because by then he had already been dead for more than 300 years. If 16 centuries had passed since Caesar’s introduction of his calendar, the Julian calendar in Gregory’s time would have been out of sync with the astronomical situation by 13 days, not 10.

Some historians have noticed this contradiction, but they solve it this way: the scholars in
Caesar’s time reckoned a different date for the equinox (the day in spring, where day and
night have the same length). Yet it can be proved that the Romans used the same date for the equinox as we do today, i.e. the 21st of March (Illig 1991 and 1993).
In other words, according to this guy, the only way that the Julian calendar could have been off by just 10 days is if the time between its introduction and the introduction of the Gregorian calendar was about 300 years shorter than conventional history suggests.

But this is a pretty poor understanding of the history of the history of these calendars. The 10 day number didn't go back to the introduction of the Julian calendar, but rather to the calendar as it was during the Council of Nicea-- which happened to be in (wait for it...) 325. Part of the reason for this event was to reconcile some issues with celebrating Easter (esp. in conjunction with Passover).

Thus, this isn't really a problem at all...
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 11/10/2009 14:51:21
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1213 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2009 :  19:02:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist



But this is a pretty poor understanding of the history of the history of these calendars. The 10 day number didn't go back to the introduction of the Julian calendar, but rather to the calendar as it was during the Council of Nicea-- which happened to be in (wait for it...) 325. Part of the reason for this event was to reconcile some issues with celebrating Easter (esp. in conjunction with Passover).

Thus, this isn't really a problem at all...
This is why I like this site!

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. Jn 3:18

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1253 Posts

Posted - 11/11/2009 :  06:48:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Boron10 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
This is amazing! If this guy's speculations are true the European Dark Ages didn't exist, and the Islamic Renaissance didn't happen.

So the White People didn't really to the bad things and the Brown People didn't really do the good things.

Hmm. Convenient.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.61 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000