Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#182 - beffen (11/13/2012) [-]
Except technically we aren't in 2012 anyway so I won't really be celebrating.
Except technically we aren't in 2012 anyway so I won't really be celebrating.
#204 to #182 - beffen (11/13/2012) [-]
Since everyone seems to be mistaking what I meant...   
I meant that when they calculated the years since then going by how many kings/queens had ruled and for how long, and first started keeping track of the year, they didn't include one king who only ruled for four years who was missed out until his rule was rediscovered years later. Historians thought it best not to disrupt the calender and left it, so technically we're in the year 2016. Nothing to do with 'atheists believe it should be the age of the Earth' or whatever.
Since everyone seems to be mistaking what I meant...
I meant that when they calculated the years since then going by how many kings/queens had ruled and for how long, and first started keeping track of the year, they didn't include one king who only ruled for four years who was missed out until his rule was rediscovered years later. Historians thought it best not to disrupt the calender and left it, so technically we're in the year 2016. Nothing to do with 'atheists believe it should be the age of the Earth' or whatever.
+5
#188 to #182 - sickpup **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #200 to #188 - ASDLSD (11/13/2012) [-]
He is right tho, technically it isn't 2012 because Christfags started counting since he was born.
+1
#215 to #200 - sickpup **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #218 to #215 - beffen (11/13/2012) [-]
Totally not what I meant by it anyway. I was referring to the fact that we're 4 years out because a king was missed when the calender was calculated.
#197 to #188 - friedpotato (11/13/2012) [-]
There would be no designated year if humans had not made calendars and there have been many different ones. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but that is an approximation. It isn't accurate down to the year. If we pretended that it is exactly 4.5 billion years old and we used all the years it has been in existence, then it would be the year 4,500,000,000.
There would be no designated year if humans had not made calendars and there have been many different ones. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but that is an approximation. It isn't accurate down to the year. If we pretended that it is exactly 4.5 billion years old and we used all the years it has been in existence, then it would be the year 4,500,000,000.
User avatar #208 to #197 - lordlolland (11/13/2012) [-]
It wouldn't be 10 degrees Celcius if somebody hadn't invented the celcius scale, but that dosnt matter because it would still be 10 degrees celcius.
So the fact that it wouldn't be the year 2012 if we didnt follow the Gregorian calender dosnt ******* matter because we actually follow the Gregorian calender.
#211 to #208 - friedpotato (11/13/2012) [-]
Not everybody on Earth does.
Not everybody on Earth does.
User avatar #225 to #211 - lordlolland (11/13/2012) [-]
the premise of OP's realization that he wont be around for another repetitive date is that we are using the Gregorian calender, so saying that it isnt the year 2012, for whatever reason, is completely irrelevant.
#193 to #188 - kyoutu (11/13/2012) [-]
Let me help you understand.

2012 years have passed since the birth of Christ, this is where this number comes from.
However some people, atheists and scientists count the years since life on earth was predicted to have begun or since the human race began, depends on the subject in question.
But, as humans have been around a lot longer then 2012 years, technically the human race isn't in the year 2012.
User avatar #201 to #193 - beffen (11/13/2012) [-]
Actually that's not what I meant at all.
I meant that when they calculated the years since then going by how many kings/queens had ruled and for how long, and first started keeping track of the year, they didn't include one king who only ruled for four years who was missed out until his rule was rediscovered years later. Historians thought it best not to disrupt the calender and left it, so technically we're in the year 2016.
User avatar #214 to #201 - kyoutu (11/13/2012) [-]
Oh, I did not know this, either way neither of us are incorrect.
User avatar #199 to #193 - lordlolland (11/13/2012) [-]
Technically that is a load of bullcrap, thats like saying that it isnt 10 degrees Celsius because the Kelvin scale exist and has a different 0.

It is the year 2012 because year 0 in the Gregorian calender is the year Jesus Christ was born and we are following the ******* Gregorian calender.
#212 to #199 - kyoutu (11/13/2012) [-]
It's not bull crap, it's a different perspective of looking at things, I'm not saying the year 2012 doesn't exist or is it wrong, in it's own way of thinking it is correct but in others it is wrong.

You can read temperature however way you like, using Celsius or the Kelvin scale, that's up to you, neither way is incorrect, both are correct in their own way.

This is the same for time, if someone want's to call it the year 4.5billion (rough estimate to the year the earth formed) or whatever it's completely reasonable, logical and acceptable.

Humans have been around for a blink of an eye, why is our calendar more important than that of earth's existence? Because we invented it?
User avatar #221 to #212 - lordlolland (11/13/2012) [-]
I agree that all timescales are correct in their own way, but the premise of OP's realization that he wont be around for another repetitive date is that we are using the Gregorian calender, so saying that it isnt the year 2012, for whatever reason, is completely irrelevant.
 Friends (0)