Delano

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/really-extreme-global-weather-event-leaves-scientists-aghast-20180226-p4z1q4.html

sorry changed the question.

My comment was on response to the above statement. How does their sexual preference have any impact on my statement?

are numbers discovered or created? No one will get this one right. @Troy you may want to read the first sentence. Or you could look it up. Christian roots and principles are not synonymous.

Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories. Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.” In the United Kingdom, the earliest university-type establishment was probably the College, established by the Celtic preacher St. Illtyd in about AD 500. Oxford University was established by various religious orders. Likewise, Cambridge University was established in 1209 by Christian leaders. Saint Andrews, Scotland’s oldest university, was founded principally for the teaching and study of theology. The commitment of these religious founders might be suspect, but many of the later colleges were founded by Bible-believing Christians. The University of Edinburgh had a thoroughly evangelical beginning, being founded under Presbyterian auspices. Even my alma mater, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC), had Christian roots when it was founded in 1869. Our school motto was Deo Volente, which is Latin for “God willing.” By the time I attended SIUC in the 1990s, there was almost no vestige of that Christian heritage left. In fact, the university emphatically teaches evolution over millions of years and blatantly rejects the possibility of biblical authority (that the Bible is true—authoritative—and that we need to adjust our beliefs and actions to its teaching). So what happened to cause so many schools to abandon their Christian roots?

Unlike yourself I have no idea what polygamous women would choose.

Who says it has to be many women it could be many men.

However the terms BC BCE are used by everyone and are of a religious origin

So you have noted it well. Show and prove. @Pioneer1

I couldn't have said it better. @Mel Hopkins @Cynique @Troy @zaji @Pioneer1

I don't know, should I like it, because well I kind of don't like it.

The numerical value of the year. I am familiar with the calculation of the month the naming and order of days of the week, the adjustment of the calendar, civilizations that used a non 7 day week. Since this is mostly astronomical. As are Easter Passover Chinese New Year, the Kumbh Mela and other holydays. @Mel Hopkins @Pioneer1

Bravo @Cynique

Well done @Mel Hopkins @Cynique Note this well @Pioneer1

Are you disputing that the numeric value of most calendar years is based on religion . @Mel

In deed.

While years on the Standard Gregorian calendar are measured in relation to the presumed birth of Jesus, non-Christian communities often benchmark theirs against the birth, death or particularly significant episode in the life of their religious leaders: Iran; Afganistan; Saudi Arabia ; India and Ethiopia. This is a reference from the book It's About Time pp 58 - 62 by Liz Evers.

@Delano @Mel Hopkins I have to agree with Mel. That your example using priest is flawed. You could have argued that by invoking their religious background they are represent a religious view and hence a representative of the church. However by definition they are not religion they are a facet of religion. And the part is not a proxy of the whole. The only instance that is true is for holograms. Mel it's your turn.

The Mayans, The Muslims and the Christians and the Jews all have calendars with different years. Their calendars are astronomical for religious holydays.

Did you catch that pun.

But whichever way one pitches it, the origin of Year One is , unchanged, coinciding wIth the assigned birth year of Jesus. So Pioneer is correct

I happen to be reading two books on time. I will post the answer.

Is anyone not using "facts" to bolster their argument?

How is it possible that I can be both super tolerant and doing a thorough job of arguing points? What would be the source of my repressed anger. If you could detail it for me you would be doing me and my associates a great service. If you facts don't sway your target either your facts aren't compelling, they aren't facts or one or both of your are mistaken about the facts. Opinons are a function of belief and life experience and to assume your opinions are more valid is arrogant. Is Pioneer the only one gloating over being right? An opinion is not a factual statement so it is not possible to correct someone's opinion. Unless they think their opinion is an expression of fact. Which was the point that I was attempting to make. If i say chocolate is better than vanilla you can't say that is wrong. If I say it is a fact that chocolate is better than vanilla. I am still not wrong but it is not a true statement. Since it can't be validated. So I am hesistant to say someone is wrong I will most likely say we have a misunderstanding or I was not clear

I only speak and think for myself. Which is why I declined your request to explain the clip. Furthermore I think everyone has a valid opinion which is not subordinate to my agreement. Paradoxically if you say someone's opinion is wrong then you are wrong. If you feel are expressing a factual statement rather than your opinion.