Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

I was mostly just trying to include words that he originally said in the post there. Thinking on it now, it would still be accurate to whatever it was pointed to. But it would still point at nothing, so my point stands.

Unless, of course, someone can prove me wrong scientifically about something worth marking on the calendar happened in that year. But seeing as no one has yet attempted to do that... well.

Is there an actual quote that it is the Scientific Community ("TM") pushing the change? All I saw on the OP was that the "international community" is pushing it. International community: people around the world. A lot of the answers really seem like lashing out against those "damn scientists" for no reason. Blame it all on the scientific heathens?

What do you have against actually answering my questions? I am not against scientists here. I like scientists. I just want to know what they are saying about this myself, because it seems to me everyone here wants to debate without facts. And when I ask for someone to provide facts, I get rhetoric, and people asking distracting questions rather than any actual... science! Which is alarming in a thread purportedly about science.

Edit: I am actually going to apologise to you, since I forgot that you were the one approaching it from a PC angle, and I will throw you a bone. Kofi Annan agrees with you. However, I am not sure if I agree with him. And it is most certainly not a scientific explanation for the date.

[Servant Corps]

Lately, there has been a lot of push in the international circle to replace the dating system which uses BC (before Christ) and AD (Year of the Lord) with one that instead calls them BCE (before common era) and CE (common era).

I believe the correct term is Chrisitan Era.

[Sergius]

Is there an actual quote that it is the Scientific Community ("TM") pushing the change? All I saw on the OP was that the "international community" is pushing it. International community: people around the world. A lot of the answers really seem like lashing out against those "damn scientists" for no reason. Blame it all on the scientific heathens?

What do you have against actually answering my questions? I am not against scientists here. I like scientists. I just want to know what they are saying about this myself, because it seems to me everyone here wants to debate without facts. And when I ask for someone to provide facts, I get rhetoric, and people asking distracting questions rather than any actual... science! Which is alarming in a thread purportedly about science.

Who says I was replying to you? Man you got a big ego.

And who says this is a thread about science? The OP says nothing about science, yet everyone seems to assume that "the damn scientists want to get rid of Christ".

[Willfor]

Who says I was replying to you? Man you got a big ego.

And who says this is a thread about science? The OP says nothing about science, yet everyone seems to assume that "the damn scientists want to get rid of Christ".

First, read the edit of my post.

Then, please accept a second apology. I get a little carried away when I start debating.

[Sergius]

Who says I was replying to you? Man you got a big ego.

And who says this is a thread about science? The OP says nothing about science, yet everyone seems to assume that "the damn scientists want to get rid of Christ".

First, read the edit of my post.

Then, please accept a second apology. I get a little carried away when I start debating.

Apology accepted.

And anyway, my last post wasn't about how *I* was approaching it from the PC side (even if I am), my point was that nowhere does it says that this is some kind of hidden scientific agenda, that "the scientists are pushing for the change to CE or BCE and therefore should provide scientific proof/justification to use that age". Who says it's the scientists? Maybe it's the worlds Buddhists. Or Jews. Or pretty much anyone who isn't interesting of naming the era after a religious figure from one specific religion, that might or might not have existed, and who probably wasn't born in year 0 anyway.

For all I know the "scientists" are the ones who really don't want the extra bother of having to retype all their physics and engineering journals. And thus I find strange all those posts challenging the Scientific Community to do this or than in exchange of us accepting "their" new Age denominations.

[Duke 2.0]

 Because we got the idea they were at fault with all these replies relating to science.

 Who is supporting this, anyway?

[Mephansteras]

Hehe. Well, I started off on the 'scientific' angle because I first heard about this while reading science and history journals in college.  I looked into it a little bit, though, and at least according to Wikipedia the modern usage actually all started with Jewish scholars who wanted to differentiate between their own calendar and the one commonly used in the western world without pretending to be christian.

I guess a bunch of other groups have gotten onto the bandwagon as well, for accuracy, PC, and whatever other reasons.

[Willfor]

Interesting.

[PTTG??]

I don't care. BC and AD are fine. Unless they have a full system, BCE and CE aren't any better.

Really, this is a manufactured crisis. Nobody really cares about it other than Conservapedia folks panicking about "Liberals making Jesus illegal!"

[Aqizzar]

Speaking of which, you guys want a Scientifically Important year to base a new calendar on?  2001AD will be year 0.

Why?  B.W. (Before Wikipedia), Year 0, A.W. (After Wikipedia)

The glorious year that all information and knowledge became open to debate and ass-pulling.

Seriously, that does reflect the biggest problem with coming up with a new calendar, having to go back and essentially rewrite most of the modern historical record with new dates.

[JoshuaFH]

Wait, BC = Before Christ and AD = Year of the lord? I was told they stood for latin phrases that mean something else entirely.

[Strife26]

How about my birthday?

Jan 26 1992, makes a good baseline.

No matter what date you choose, it is going to be arbitrary for a lot of people. Christ's birth has tradition going for it. Why change?

[Willfor]

Technically, the translation is more "The Year of Our Lord". At least that is what I remember from Colonization. Which was a nice game. :]

[Strife26]

What date would work as a baseline for human history?

End of WWII maybe?

[Sergius]

Wait, BC = Before Christ and AD = Year of the lord? I was told they stood for latin phrases that mean something else entirely.

"The term Anno Domini is Medieval Latin, translated as In the year of (the/Our) Lord). It is sometimes specified more fully as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ")."