• It's not a new decade ffs!
    98 replies, posted
[QUOTE=~ZOMG;19353786]Everything in this thread seemed plausible (still bullshit) except this:[/QUOTE] It's true, the year 0 is not accounted for as an actual year. The calender started at the year [b]1[/b].
Since 1AD was 1 year after Jesus death (according to the Christians and our calendar system) and 10AD would be 10 years, then 2010 is the beginning of the new decade. Your logic excludes year zero.
There only being a 1 BC and a 1 AD is confusing. So there was a year before Christ was born, and a year after Christ died, but no middleman? what
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;19353809]The earth's not actually 2010 years old? :ohdear:[/QUOTE] I hope it's sarcasm
[QUOTE=Ohim;19353582] Simple logic and the ability to count will tell you when a new decade or millennium begins and end. A decade is ten years. Since there was no year zero... [/QUOTE] No year zero? No, but there was definitely a year 1980, 1990, 2000, and now 2010. Add the remaining 9 years of the decade and you've got 10 years.
[QUOTE=Ohim;19353750]I am is mathematically right[/QUOTE] You am isn't grammatically right.
[QUOTE=DarkWolf2;19353811]It's true, the year 0 is not accounted for as an actual year. The calender started at the year [b]1[/b].[/QUOTE] jesus was born when he died? News flash! No, AD means after death. No one really knows when Jesus was born.
[QUOTE=Ohim;19353750]See you guys really need to educate yourselves. Actually, it’s not really 2010 or 2009, our date is just an arbitrary number it’s more like 13-14,000,000,000 somewhere in that range for the year, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe[/url] The only reason we say 2010 is because we decided to start our calendar when Jesus was born. But reality is that if you measure humans then it’s been at least 200,000 years. But if your talking about modern civilization then in “Sumer” aka modern Iraq then the true date is more like 5010. I know that the next decade begins officaly 2011. My argument is about a definition. I am is mathematically right, but a lot of people (you guys) use their own definition. So a definition is a definition and it is not right or wrong. I can't see that the difference between these two kinds of definitions of a decade has any serious effect on something.[/QUOTE] It's 2010 now you heathen.
[QUOTE=Ohim;19353750]I am is mathematically right[/QUOTE] But you are isn't grammatically right!
[QUOTE=Ohim;19353582]If you're thinking today is the start of a new decade, you are one year too early. The next decade doesn't start until January 1, 2011. It seems when it comes to the calendar, many people can't count. I remember when everyone thought Y2K was the start of the new millennium. Those are the same people who think the new decade starts on 1st Jan 2010 Simple logic and the ability to count will tell you when a new decade or millennium begins and end. A decade is ten years. Since there was no year zero, ten years is year 1 to 10 and a new decade starts at year 11. In other words, the last decade was 2001 to 2010. We are heading into the end of the decade, not the start of new one. I guess this mistake isn't as a bad as the Y2K mistake when everyone though January 1, 2000 was the start of the 21st century and the new millennium. Way more people were talking about that as year 2000 approached. It’s a good thing I only have to deal with that once every 1000 years. However, enough people are calling 2010 the start of a new decade to irritate me enough to make this thread. That is all.[/QUOTE] Learn to count. 2000-2009 is 1 decade. 2010-2019 is 1 decade. 2020-2029 is 1 decade. Just get over it. You are wrong sir! Seriously, the fact that you have been disproved in previous threads and still believe this is terrifying. I really worry to think how your brain works. :ohdear:
GUYS PLEASE, HE'S RIGHT; 2000 1 2001 2 2002 3 2003 4 2004 5 2005 6 2006 7 2007 8 2008 10 2009 11 (:smug:) If you have been proven wrong, why do you continue to try and usurp the truth, poopy head?
[QUOTE=Sonic4Ever;19353826]I hope it's sarcasm[/QUOTE] No, there was nothing before Jesus.
You're not very politically correct, are you?
[QUOTE=Nyaos;19353842]jesus was born when he died? News flash! No, AD means after death. No one really knows when Jesus was born.[/QUOTE] Actually AD stands for "Anno Domini" which is Latin for "In the year of (the/Our) Lord"
You skipped 9. Troll harder.
I'm amazed how you're all so easily trolled. I remember seeing this from another thread, where a 08 non-troll tried to do this discussion, and everyone raged. He most've stole it from that.
People: The year 0 does [b]NOT[/b] count as a year in our calender system. [quote]Year zero is not used in the widely used Gregorian calendar, nor in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. Under those systems, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering (where it coincides with the Julian year 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC) as well as in all Buddhist and Hindu calendars.[/quote]
[QUOTE=pie_is_good;19353876]Actually AD stands for "Anno Domini" which is Latin for "In the year of (the/Our) Lord"[/QUOTE] I stand corrected. I just looked into it and Jesus fucking was born like 4BC and died 30 AD so that's all bullshit. Still since there was a year zero then it's a decade as of this year.
[QUOTE=Nyaos;19353881]You skipped 9. Troll harder.[/QUOTE] :hurr: I was playing on his ignorance and stupidity.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;19353820]There only being a 1 BC and a 1 AD is confusing. So there was a year before Christ was born, and a year after Christ died, but no middleman? what[/QUOTE] AD doesn't stand for after death you know I have to explain this to so many people
Who cares? Everyone else celebrates it now.
[QUOTE=Tools;19353884]I'm amazed how you're all so easily trolled. I remember seeing this from another thread, where a 08 non-troll tried to do this discussion, and everyone raged. He most've stole it from that.[/QUOTE] No, it's not trolling. It's just you and the other 90% of Facepunch have the IQ of a clown. Sigh, oh lordy I did not realize God made such stupid creatures.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;19353870]No, there was nothing before Jesus.[/QUOTE] I powerfully facepalmed at this
[QUOTE=cryticfarm;19353933]AD doesn't stand for after death you know I have to explain this to so many people[/QUOTE] Sorry - I learned that recently. I grew up being told that AD = after death. Not really my fault.
Technically speaking, he's right. The mathematically-correct decade begins in 2011. However, culturally speaking, the new decade has begun here in 2010. Does that make sense?
[QUOTE=teh pirate;19353820]There only being a 1 BC and a 1 AD is confusing. So there was a year before Christ was born, and a year after Christ died, but no middleman? what[/QUOTE] AD doesn't stand for "After Death." Jesus was born 0 AD.
[QUOTE=Nyaos;19353913]I stand corrected. I just looked into it and Jesus fucking was born like 4BC and died 30 AD so that's all bullshit. Still since there was a year zero then it's a decade as of this year.[/QUOTE] See my response above you. In our calender system the year 0 IS NOT AN ACTUAL YEAR. This doesn't mean it hasn't actually existed. but the calender system we use worldwide (Gregorian calendar) does not see the year 0 as a year. Thus, OP is correct and you're all :bandwagon:/Not thinking it over.
[QUOTE=DarkWolf2;19353905]People: The year 0 does [b]NOT[/b] count as a year in our calender system.[/QUOTE] It's not a decade in our calender system, but 10 years have in fact commenced. If a calender system is going to exclude a year, it's a shitty calender system.
[quote=somerandomguy18;19353978]ad doesn't stand for "after death." jesus was born 0 ad.[/quote] [b]yes i get it thank you sir[/b]
[QUOTE=Ohim;19353944]No, it's not trolling. It's just you and the other 90% of Facepunch have the IQ of a clown. Sigh, oh lordy I did not realize God made such stupid creatures.[/QUOTE] Like I said earlier, you are just doing this to pretend you are superior to other people just because you know something no one cares about. I tried to defend your view and you are right like I said, but get off your high horse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.