Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 01, 2020

Despite what most people appear to believe, science tells us we haven't turned over to a decade in the 21st Century. Because there is no zero year in our calendar, decades span from years ending with ..1 to ..0. Just like the century began in 2001, the next decade will begin in 2021.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is what they said about 2000 too.

#1 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-01 12:57 PM | Reply

"haven't turned over to a decade"

That should read a new decade.

#2 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-01 12:57 PM | Reply

It's funny how erstwhile intelligent people fail to realize that birthday/anniversary counts are for completed years, not upcoming ones.

Today is the first day of our calendar's 2021st year, not the first day of our 2020th. From the day a person is born until the 365th (or 366th) day later, they are living in Year One of life, but aren't a "year old" until that anniversary day of birth.

So yes, this is a new decade.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-01-01 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We all have nukes. He can end it.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-01-01 01:37 PM | Reply

#3, the calendar doesn't work like birthdays do. The first year in the calendar is 1 A.D.

#5 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-01 01:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#3, the calendar doesn't work like birthdays do. The first year in the calendar is 1 A.D.

Such arrogance. Were you there? Did the people living at the time designate what year it was? Of course not. That is why the article is subject to the interpretations of fallible man guessing about the past with uncertainty.

The entire argument is based on the conjecture that throughout the centuries man has been able to infallibly count the passing of time correctly even though specific designations weren't actually made in real time. Those living before A.D. did not count years backwards towards Year One/Zero, they had their own positive count in some form or another.

And yes, the calendar measures the passage of years, as do birthdays. It's false to say that they're different when they're exactly the same. Any date falling one year apart is the same as any other, whether it be called a calendar date, a birthday, or an anniversary.

The difference is the starting point of the beginning measurement, not the measurements themselves.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-01-01 01:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#6 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Agreed ...

Wittgenstein's ruler: nerds use the ruler to measure the table; Fat Tonies (and real scientists) use the table to measure the ruler.

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-01 02:12 PM | Reply

"The entire argument is based on the conjecture that throughout the centuries man has been able to infallibly count the passing of time."

No it isn't. It's based on how the calendar is literally structured. Whether or not the intended start date is historically accurate to the event it's purported to be, it doesn't change the fact there is no year between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. in the retroactively created calendar that is in use today.

#8 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-01 02:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Whether or not the intended start date is historically accurate to the event it's purported to be, it doesn't change the fact there is no year between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. in the retroactively created calendar that is in use today.

And there is equally no way to 100% certify that the current calendar is an accurate representation of the historical events we're all familiar with and their actual occurrence in real time.

The question is moot. Humans are fallible, and the calendar is subjective regardless.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-01-01 03:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"And there is equally no way to 100% certify that the current calendar is an accurate representation of the historical events we're all familiar with and their actual occurrence in real time."

www.youtube.com

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-01 05:00 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"And there is equally no way to 100% certify that the current calendar is an accurate representation of the historical events we're all familiar with and their actual occurrence in real time."

The Origin and History of the BCE/CE Dating System

BCE/CE continues to be used because it is more accurate than BC/AD. Dionysius had no understanding of the concept of zero and neither did Bede. The calendar they dated events from, therefore, is inaccurate. The year 1 AD would follow 1 BC without a starting point for the new chronology of events. The BC/AD system, from Dionysius onward, was informed by Christian theology which took for granted that someone (Dionysius) actually knew the birth date of Jesus of Nazareth. In order to date a present event from a past event one must know when that past event occurred. One may say that one is twenty years old only if one knows for certain that one was born twenty years ago on a certain date. Dating events from an uncertain point is inaccurate because one is making an untrue statement based on a false assumption.

By the time people began questioning how Dionysius arrived at the date of Jesus' birth, or whether he was correct, over 1000 years had passed and a great deal of history had been recorded. Since there was no way to undo Dionysius' dating system, the claim that events were dated from Jesus' birth was changed to claim an event happening a certain number of years after Christian tradition supposed Jesus of Nazareth to have been born.

I believe you've sprung a leak Sentinel. Might wanna get that looked at. You know the link.

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-01-01 05:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11, If you're deliberately trolling, then you deserve high marks for quality of that. If you're actually serious, then fail. The part you highlighted is a red herring, and it has no effect on whether you start counting a new decade/century on a year ending with zero or one. The commonly used calendar which just turned over to 2020 does not have a year zero, so the first decade was years 1 through 10, the second decade was 11 through 20, and so on.

Also, you're not completely correct about the birthday thing, either. In many countries, including one I lived in previously, people count their ages as the year of life they're currently in, so if you asked someone in China who was born the same day you were how old they are, they'd appear to say they're a year older than you.

#12 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-01 06:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The commonly used calendar which just turned over to 2020 does not have a year zero, so the first decade was years 1 through 10, the second decade was 11 through 20, and so on."

In case you haven't noticed, the collective modern world decided a long time ago that it didn't like the way that worked out.

The new decade started today.

#13 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-01-01 07:54 PM | Reply

...the first decade was years 1 through 10...
#12 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

No, the first decade was -1 through 9.

#14 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2020-01-01 08:27 PM | Reply

Maybe there was no year 0, but the first decade was the "Zeros". 01, 02, etc....
Today is the first day of the decade. The "20s".

#15 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2020-01-01 08:32 PM | Reply

Also, you're not completely correct about the birthday thing, either. In many countries, including one I lived in previously, people count their ages as the year of life they're currently in,

Which is exactly what I stated in my first post. We all live in the same time regardless of how a person actually counts it. Your birthday is the day you were born, hence your FIRST birthday is your day of birth, not the anniversary of it a year later that we in America call our "birthday".

It amazes me that you apparently are unable to debate compound topics with full acknowledgement that the subject matter is broader than just one aspect. My point about the calendar was to say that no one knows with absolute certainty when or based on what indisputable date our calendar is based upon, therefore any argument about the unquestioned, scientifically proven knowledge of a specific date can never be accomplished.

Ergo, arguments about arbitrary dates are indeed moot, for no one alive can prove anything with factual certainty because no such record has ever existed. Our calendars are based on miscalculated events that cannot be certified as happening when noted on said calendars. IOW, GIGO. Our timekeeping skills are imperfect and so are our calendars and the passage of time that we think that they show, knowing full well that they aren't accurate because those inventing them didn't have actual date-certains to guide them by, merely guesses based on tales, fables, and anecdotal circumstances.

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-01-01 08:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh who really cares. I mean seriously.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-01 09:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

'Maybe there was no year 0, but the first decade was the "Zeros". 01, 02, etc....'

How many years were in that "decade"? Nice try, but no.

'Today is the first day of the decade. The "20s".'

Technically, you can say every day is the first day of a decade. It doesn't change how the actual calendar works. Calendar-wise, we're still in the second decade of the 21st century, until next year.

#18 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-01 09:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Oh who really cares. I mean seriously.

Good bet this is an idiotic debate that comes up every ten years.

#19 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-01-01 09:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is absurd. Of course its a new decade. The fact a "mistake" happened and we never had a year zero doesn't mean we have to repeat that mistake for every year that ends in a zero.

So the first century since the year zero was only 99 years long. That was the mistake and it ends there.

This century started in 2000 and this decade started in 2020.

Finished

#20 | Posted by prius04 at 2020-01-01 09:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh who really cares. I mean seriously.

#17 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

It doesn't change how the actual calendar works. Calendar-wise, we're still in the second decade of the 21st century, until next year.

As I said, "how arrogant." Time is whatever the public wants it to be, and your way is not the majority's way regardless of how hard you wish it to be. That is why there are many different calendars still in use today around the world that wholly differ from ours.

It's subjective, and it's moot. No one knows what day it really is because human beings never agreed upon when the counting actually started, nor if it measured the passage of days and times as precisely as our technology today allows.

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-01-01 09:19 PM | Reply

The absolute correct answer.

youtu.be

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-01 09:28 PM | Reply

#18 | Posted by sentinel

Keep digging...

#23 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-01-01 09:44 PM | Reply

This is why we can't have nice things.

"Time is whatever the public wants it to be, and your way is not the majority's way regardless of how hard you wish it to be."

The majority is historically often wrong about things. The majority once thought the Earth was flat, that other planets in our system were stars, that slavery and Jim Crow were acceptable, etc.

#24 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-01 10:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The majority is historically often wrong about things."

Things like Swastikas and Confederate flags.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-01 10:16 PM | Reply


"The majority is historically often wrong about things."
Things like Swastikas and Confederate flags.
#25 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Hillary

#26 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-01 10:31 PM | Reply

"Hillary"

Even she never got a majority.

#27 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-01 10:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Historians have never included a year zero. This means that between, for example, 1 January 500 BC and 1 January AD 500, there are 999 years: 500 years BC, and 499 years AD preceding 500. In common usage anno Domini 1 is preceded by the year 1 BC, without an intervening year zero.

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-01 11:03 PM | Reply

The BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini) system was invented in the year AD 525 by a monk in the Roman Empire. The Roman numeral system, which was still in use at the time, has no concept of zero. Thus, the day after 31 December 1 BC was 01 January AD 1.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-01 11:08 PM | Reply

Thus, the day after 31 December 1 BC was 01 January AD 1.

And when that was decided upon in 525, just how accurate where the calculations setting the dates? I.E., A.D and B.C. were guesses from 500 plus years in the future where no factual records of the past existed because the people at that time were not using the same computations since the world had no way of taking into account the unknown birthdate of an obscure child born into poverty amongst the great Roman Empire of that time.

The point being is that no calendar has ever existed that could knowingly account for the specific historical event that our current calendar is supposed to be based upon. Ergo, the entire discussion of time and dating is wholly subjective and can never be empirically proven because there are no actual constants from which the calendars were built upon hundreds of years after the fact.

#30 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-01-01 11:45 PM | Reply

- The majority once thought the Earth was flat

Your point is well taken, but that example is a myth.

en.wikipedia.org

... much like the exaggerated death tolls of the Spanish Inquisition.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-01 11:46 PM | Reply

Why 2020 Started On December 30th

www.youtube.com

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-01 11:52 PM | Reply

"- The majority once thought the Earth was flat
Your point is well taken, but that example is a myth.
en.wikipedia.org"

The myth of the flat Earth is a modern misconception that Earth was believed to be flat rather than spherical by scholars and the educated during the Middle Ages in Europe.

The scholars and the educated were in the minority at the time, just like those who understand how the calendar is actually structured are today.

#33 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-02 12:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Ergo, the entire discussion of time and dating is wholly subjective and can never be empirically proven because there are no actual constants from which the calendars were built upon hundreds of years after the fact."

I always appreciate agnosticism when it comes to things far beyond what we have direct evidence for, but we know for a fact how the calendar we use today was structured. Whether or not it accurately hit the historical event it was aiming to coincide its start date with is irrelevant. Any calendar which counts its first year as "1" will have years 1 through 10 in its first decade, and so on. The computer you're using right now wouldn't work if time and dating were wholly subjective.

#34 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-02 12:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

There is no poll of what the majority of the people in any given place believed about the shape of the earth, so it is surmise to think we know what they thought.

The very idea that most people in the middle ages thought that is a 19th century presumption, as the article indicates.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-02 12:23 AM | Reply

I don't care either way I found those and posted them. I'm not even sure it's 2020. Weren't we supposed to be living the Jetson's kind of life by now??

#36 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-02 12:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lol

We all refer to Jesus daily, even if we deny Him calling ourselves atheists.

#37 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2020-01-02 02:05 AM | Reply

#36 | Posted by LauraMohr

I case you hadn't noticed, Laura, transgender people ruined everything.

#38 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-01-02 07:33 AM | Reply

Who gives a pair of fetid dingo kidneys? The year (numerically) is an arbitrarily decided designation based on the purported life of a mythological person who, ad far add historical evidence is concerned, likely never even existed.

Are we in a new decade? Sure. Why the Belgium not.

Now leave me alone. I'm still bloody hung over.

#39 | Posted by RevDarko at 2020-01-02 08:04 AM | Reply

Someone suggested using a battle described by Herodotus which is the oldest event possible to pin down in a two part ID in that first it was mentioned in history and second we know exactly when it was because H said they had to stop fighting when it got so dark so suddenly that day they could not see. This was a total eclipse which for that location had to be one exact day.

#40 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2020-01-02 03:36 PM | Reply

We all refer to Jesus daily, even if we deny Him calling ourselves atheists.

#37 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU

New Gods always step on the Old Gods. Your God is no different. Usurping other common beliefs and replacing the old with the new religion. But I don't have to refer to your God or say BC or AD. as I could say before the common era. (BCE)Or the common era. (CE)As BCE uses the same system as BC.

Common Era (CE) is a method used to identify a year. It means "a year in our time" (rather than a year for a very long time ago). ... Before Common Era (BCE) is the system for the years "Before the Common Era". BCE uses the same numbering as BC.

I don't have to deny your God. It's more like I can just ignore Him as I am just a Human and He is Just another God. It doesn't matter what I believe. And I don't need to believe in Him anyway. Just as long as He keeps believing in me then I will be fine.

#41 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-02 08:40 PM | Reply

>science tells us
in the leftist mind, "science" is like a uniform object, until it starts describing the genetic characteristics of different populations...

#42 | Posted by berserkone at 2020-01-03 12:51 AM | Reply

>larry hijab, an xbox enthusiast
thank god this slob isn't the savior of the western world; we'd be doomed.
If Charles Martel or Jan Sobieski had the same attitude as this guy, we'd all be bowing toward a big black box.

#43 | Posted by berserkone at 2020-01-03 01:03 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort