I've linked to a recently updated 3-D geological methodology that is in common use now in modern oil resource and geological studies. This makes an interesting read, especially for those hopelessly stuck in references to very old methods (i.e.: those used in the late '80s, the entire '90s and the first 2/3rds of the '2000s. Yep; that 1987 paper the science critics might post as 'proof' that geosciences are just "not to be trusted!!" are
hopelessly out of date.)
3D Modeling of Geologic Maps (http://www.dgi.com/earthvision/evarticles/2003-2008/evarticles_3DMapsLuxey.html - broken link)
All the key elements used in modern field studies are herein combined in the high-powered and high-speed computing of a modern IT system to provide what you see in these glorious pictures. Please
do click on and enjoy the sidebar pix to see the evolution of these graphics.
Some of those important dating elements
include the latest iterations of the various (and growing) numbers of increasingly reliable and cross-supporting methodologies using micro-sampling and highly sophisticated micro-interrogation methods that leave
no reasonable doubt in the mind of the technologically open-minded and interested observer. within rational and stated limits of course, but certainly a lot better than
"It's all only 6037 years old, when it all happened one afternoon!"
Breakthrough In Geological Dating Imminent
However, even
this paper from 1999
(Zah oldt dayz!) shows the combination of at least 9 different methodologies to arrive at their careful conclusions (MZ levels, lithostratigraphy, dated geo-level placements, magneto-stratigraphy, Magnetic polarity shifts in iron-baring minerals, of course radio-isotopic dating, phytolithic stratigraphy, Argon/Argon and K-Argon dating.
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/23/13...as;96/23/13235
Quite the array of cross-checks just to pinpoint a lone rodent tooth sample, huh? But nonetheless, to refute and casually dismiss it as
"a biased and 'invented' lie", the refuter would REALLY have to do their techno-homework and present more than a
"Nahhnahh-nahhh neener-neener" argument. Assuming they honestly intended to be credible....
(I'm all ears, BTW)
All of this just to pinpoint and clarify the confidently claimed ages of the evolution of changes in the rodent tooth structure under study as being valid and in the 35.34 - 36.62 Ma (Mega-annum = Million years) range.
(I note the scientists here were only too happy to improve on previously older time determinations as the techniques are improved and of course, that relentless cross-checking is applied) But far-
far-
FAR from everything being a mere 6037+ years old of course.
Of course,
(pause for a deep calming breath....) those who would rather
not witness the truth are going to be limited in their appreciation of this work.