[Messianic Jews Net]

No, I read the review in 62 instead. But starting to skim, it is hard to get past the statement on page 4: "There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years." This talk of observation over all those years smacks of hasty advertising, I really don't know what he means.

Your question as to why I haven't read a 33-page link is a little off-point. Stultis is not providing evidence for great age by evidence from physical strata or from fossils. The article above also doesn't describe in detail how it dated the fossils. If I have time maybe I'll come back with the generic problems in radiometric dating, unless someone has some specific evidence involved with dating specific fossils.

[Dimensio]

In other words, you made a false statement, you were corrected on the false statement, and then you ignored the correction (and the supplied evidence for it) so that you could pretend that you weren't lying when you repeated the false statement.

Darwin did not revise the age of the earth. The earth had already been dated as being far older than YECs believe before Darwin published anything. At the very least you can look at the fact that there have been naysayers regarding an ancient earth since no later than 1825 -- I can't see how Darwin could have had any influence there.

[Stultis]

The article above also doesn't describe in detail how it dated the fossils. Well, yeah, it's a news article from a newspaper. The issue of Nature with the article reported on is out as of today, however, so you can go to your nearest academic library and read it. Only the first paragraph is available for free online, but fortunately in the standard format of a research paper that is an "abstract" which provides a brief summary of the whole paper:

Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia

IAN MCDOUGALL¹, FRANCIS H. BROWN² & JOHN G. FLEAGLE³

¹ Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
² Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA
³ Department of Anatomical Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to I.McD (ian.mcdougall@anu.edu.au).

In 1967 the Kibish Formation in southern Ethiopia yielded hominid cranial remains identified as early anatomically modern humans, assigned to Homo sapiens. However, the provenance and age of the fossils have been much debated. Here we confirm that the Omo I and Omo II hominid fossils are from similar stratigraphic levels in Member I of the Kibish Formation, despite the view that Omo I is more modern in appearance than Omo II. ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar ages on feldspar crystals from pumice clasts within a tuff in Member I below the hominid levels place an older limit of 198 14 kyr (weighted mean age 196 2 kyr) on the hominids. A younger age limit of 104 7 kyr is provided by feldspars from pumice clasts in a Member III tuff. Geological evidence indicates rapid deposition of each member of the Kibish Formation. Isotopic ages on the Kibish Formation correspond to ages of Mediterranean sapropels, which reflect increased flow of the Nile River, and necessarily increased flow of the Omo River. Thus the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar age measurements, together with the sapropel correlations, indicate that the hominid fossils have an age close to the older limit. Our preferred estimate of the age of the Kibish hominids is 195 5 kyr, making them the earliest well-dated anatomically modern humans yet described.