Re: virus: Virus: Opinions?

Johnny Rea (matziq@airmail.net)
Wed, 17 Jun 1998 14:06:59 -0500


Oh..ok. That explains it. I was like...4002???? hehe

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Russell <frussell@frontiernet.net>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: virus: Virus: Opinions?

>
>
>John W. Rea wrote:
>
>> 4000 and 2 bc? where did you get this number?
>>
>
>You claimed that the world was created 6000 years ago. 1998-6000=4002. I
>appologize, though; since there was no year zero it should be 4003 BC.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nathan Russell <frussell@frontiernet.net>
>> To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 6:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: virus: Virus: Opinions?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >sodom wrote:
>> >
>> >> Johnny Rea wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I don't really understand what you want me to say. I guess you
think
>> that
>> >> > unless
>> >> > someone finds the bones of Adam and proves that his DNA was the
first
>> human
>> >> > DNA on the planet that you won't believe he was the father of all
>> mankind?
>> >>
>> >> First off, i dont know if you have ever heard of RNA before. But if
you
>> had,
>> >> you would know that there is no father of mankind like you think. That
>> term
>> >> does not apply. There is no possible way that a single man was the
father
>> of
>> >> the species. It is a nice thought though. If someone did find these
>> bones,
>> >> which could still exist if they are only a 6000 years old, they would
not
>> be
>> >> the first human bones or DNA. We have bones and DNA much older than
that.
>> We
>> >> recently found a whole body that was older than that frozen in ice.
>> >>
>> >
>> >For that matter, Ancient Egypt had a thryving culture in 4002 BC. It
>> wasn't at its
>> >height yet, but it certainly wasn't a single couple sitting sitting
under a
>> tree
>> >eating apples while their kids killed each other.
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Nathan Russell
>> >frussell@frontiernet.net
>> >
>> >
>> >"I am confident that the Republicans will pick a nominee that will beat
>> Bill
>> >Clinton"
>> >-Dan Quayle on the 2000 presidential election
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>--
>Nathan Russell
>frussell@frontiernet.net
>
>
>"I am confident that the Republicans will pick a nominee that will beat
Bill
>Clinton"
>-Dan Quayle on the 2000 presidential election
>
>
>