1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Feb '12 16:29
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817135422.htm

    The bad news is the new number is still 4.3 billion years old........
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    20 Feb '12 18:17
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817135422.htm

    The bad news is the new number is still 4.3 billion years old........
    They just need more time to work on it. I am confident they will get it
    right eventually. 😏
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Feb '12 18:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    They just need more time to work on it. I am confident they will get it
    right eventually. 😏
    Lets see, 4 billion to 8000, only a difference of 500,000 to one. I'm sure they'll get there in a few billion years.......

    Did you see my question about the years you were in the Pentagon? I was there too, 1968. Only for a few months.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    20 Feb '12 19:03
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Lets see, 4 billion to 8000, only a difference of 500,000 to one. I'm sure they'll get there in a few billion years.......

    Did you see my question about the years you were in the Pentagon? I was there too, 1968. Only for a few months.
    If it was before July, I was not there yet. I am sure it will not take them
    that long. Ha ha ha 😀
Back to Top