4 ms·

This reminds me of the elevation of Mt Everest as determined in 1856: > Peak XV (measured in feet) was calculated to be exactly 29,000 ft (8,839.2 m) high, but

This reminds me of the elevation of Mt Everest as determined in 1856: > Peak XV (measured in feet) was calculated to be exactly 29,000 ft (8,839.2 m) high, but was publicly declared to be 29,002 ft (8,839.8 m) in order to avoid the impression that an exact height of 29,000 feet (8,839.2 m) was nothing more than a rounded estimate Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest

tehwalrus 10y ago
QI did this as a question, asking who was the first person to "put two feet on the top of Mt Everest".
skarap 10y ago
> This reminds me of the elevation of Mt Everest as determined in 1856: Or the joke about the museum guide telling visitors the dinosaur skeleton is 100,000,005 years old, because when he started there 5 years ago, an expert told him it was 100 million years old.
- specialist 10y ago
  I have Creationists in my family. I don't poke the bear. But I've always wanted to ask how the Earth is perpetually 6,000 years old. Another question, if the assorted Creationists can't agree on the true age, then why do they get huffy about science's varying estimates? Oh well.
  - twic 10y ago
    I understood that (some) creationists thought that the world was created in 4004 BC [1]. Which would make it 6020 years old now. That's close enough to 6000 years to just say that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    I think the answer is pretty obvious: at the moment it's rounded to "6,000 years old". Presumably in several hundred years they'll round to 6,500, then 7,000 after that... Of all things to question a Creationist about, the suspiciously round 6,000 doesn't seem like one to me...
    - wlievens 10y ago
      The notion of therebeing Creationists around in the twenty-sixth century terrifies me!
      - Natsu 10y ago
        What's another few thousand years? People haven't been taking Genesis literally since at least Origen's day (~200 AD). --- For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Origen via Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4, p. 365 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html
        pjvandehaar 10y ago
        I agree with you that nothing will convince creationists. But Origen's Genesis 1 was far from representative of his time. Sure, he's an early example of not taking Genesis 1 literally, but that's only because he was pushing a gnostic "the physical world is evil" agenda. People weren't that interested in his views of creation, and IMO they're only known because his other ideas were popular. In the places where gnosticism did catch on, it mostly dealt with what happened before the 7 days of creation (eg John 1), ignoring Genesis 1. In the next 200 years, the church declared gnosticism to be heretical, making Origen's non-literal Genesis 1 heretical implicitly without any fucks being given.
  - rbritton 10y ago
    I've had sort of a different theory on that. When explaining something from my field to someone without the background and knowledge needed to understand the precise terms, I reduce the explanation to terms and context that they're capable of understanding but still get the general meaning across. I'm not religious by any means, but I've always understood that the Bible is the word of God as interpreted and written by the various disciples. Why couldn't the same apply there? Combined with various translation approximations and differences over the millennia [0], I don't feel it's that far of a reach. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom
    - specialist 10y ago
      About yom... I recently read a fun article speculating (decoding) the values given for years and ages were Sumerian (or Babylonian) in origin, had different units and symbology, so it's not appropriate to interpret those values as literal base 10 values, which is a much more modern system. ...I've always understood that the Bible is the word of God as interpreted and written by the various disciples. Ya, I've heard that a lot, when I was in the church, and now from my fundie relatives. Starts to break down when you start to trace and relate origin myths. Mithras, Horus for the New Testament. Zoroastrian origin of monotheism. A student of religions could likely go on and on. I'm just a casual reader. Every big chief thru the ages has actively remythed their host culture, claimed divine providence, and presents his/herself as something entirely new.
  - make3 10y ago
    trying to reason with a creationist is a lost cause. there is so much freely available information and proof available openly that anyone who is still creationist can't be thinking about it in a rational way
- ascorbic 10y ago
  Archaeologists deal with this by defining the "present" in "before present" as 1st Jan 1950. It helps that that's before widespread nuclear testing messed up the radioisotope levels.
zuck9 10y ago
So, in order to prevent people from assuming it was incorrect, they made it incorrect...
- DonHopkins 10y ago
  However, not as incorrect as people would have otherwise assumed it was.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tehwalrus 10y ago

QI did this as a question, asking who was the first person to "put two feet on the top of Mt Everest".

skarap 10y ago

> This reminds me of the elevation of Mt Everest as determined in 1856: Or the joke about the museum guide telling visitors the dinosaur skeleton is 100,000,005 years old, because when he started there 5 years ago, an expert told him it was 100 million years old.

specialist 10y ago
I have Creationists in my family. I don't poke the bear. But I've always wanted to ask how the Earth is perpetually 6,000 years old. Another question, if the assorted Creationists can't agree on the true age, then why do they get huffy about science's varying estimates? Oh well.
- twic 10y ago
  I understood that (some) creationists thought that the world was created in 4004 BC [1]. Which would make it 6020 years old now. That's close enough to 6000 years to just say that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
- arcticfox 10y ago
  I think the answer is pretty obvious: at the moment it's rounded to "6,000 years old". Presumably in several hundred years they'll round to 6,500, then 7,000 after that... Of all things to question a Creationist about, the suspiciously round 6,000 doesn't seem like one to me...
  - wlievens 10y ago
    The notion of therebeing Creationists around in the twenty-sixth century terrifies me!
    - Natsu 10y ago
      What's another few thousand years? People haven't been taking Genesis literally since at least Origen's day (~200 AD). --- For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Origen via Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 4, p. 365 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04/Page_365.html
      - pjvandehaar 10y ago
        I agree with you that nothing will convince creationists. But Origen's Genesis 1 was far from representative of his time. Sure, he's an early example of not taking Genesis 1 literally, but that's only because he was pushing a gnostic "the physical world is evil" agenda. People weren't that interested in his views of creation, and IMO they're only known because his other ideas were popular. In the places where gnosticism did catch on, it mostly dealt with what happened before the 7 days of creation (eg John 1), ignoring Genesis 1. In the next 200 years, the church declared gnosticism to be heretical, making Origen's non-literal Genesis 1 heretical implicitly without any fucks being given.
- rbritton 10y ago
  I've had sort of a different theory on that. When explaining something from my field to someone without the background and knowledge needed to understand the precise terms, I reduce the explanation to terms and context that they're capable of understanding but still get the general meaning across. I'm not religious by any means, but I've always understood that the Bible is the word of God as interpreted and written by the various disciples. Why couldn't the same apply there? Combined with various translation approximations and differences over the millennia [0], I don't feel it's that far of a reach. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom
  - specialist 10y ago
    About yom... I recently read a fun article speculating (decoding) the values given for years and ages were Sumerian (or Babylonian) in origin, had different units and symbology, so it's not appropriate to interpret those values as literal base 10 values, which is a much more modern system. ...I've always understood that the Bible is the word of God as interpreted and written by the various disciples. Ya, I've heard that a lot, when I was in the church, and now from my fundie relatives. Starts to break down when you start to trace and relate origin myths. Mithras, Horus for the New Testament. Zoroastrian origin of monotheism. A student of religions could likely go on and on. I'm just a casual reader. Every big chief thru the ages has actively remythed their host culture, claimed divine providence, and presents his/herself as something entirely new.
- make3 10y ago
  trying to reason with a creationist is a lost cause. there is so much freely available information and proof available openly that anyone who is still creationist can't be thinking about it in a rational way
ascorbic 10y ago
Archaeologists deal with this by defining the "present" in "before present" as 1st Jan 1950. It helps that that's before widespread nuclear testing messed up the radioisotope levels.

zuck9 10y ago

So, in order to prevent people from assuming it was incorrect, they made it incorrect...

DonHopkins 10y ago
However, not as incorrect as people would have otherwise assumed it was.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]