Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Junior

A new article was just published in Nature, revealing it to be more complex than previously believed. Regarding the date, according to the NY Times, it's 2nd century BC, not CE.


34 posted on 11/29/2006 12:01:24 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: Alter Kaker

agrivate a professor remind them that "CE" stand for "Christian Era."


38 posted on 11/29/2006 12:03:48 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: Alter Kaker

Yeah, I noticed the dating there. Up until today all the references I found placed it in the 1st or 2nd century CE. Now, a lot of them are changing their dates: Wikipedia now puts it at 80 BCE. That indeed may be the reason for the article. Researchers may have just redated it.


39 posted on 11/29/2006 12:04:24 PM PST by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson