[js1138]

Our "observation of time" is limited to the immediate present. All references to the past are based on memory, evidence, and interpretation of evidence. Individual memory is compelling to the individual, but in fact is not particularly reliable. Any police training group can happily demonstrate that witnesses frequently fail to recall key elements of an event correctly.

Over the centuries we have developed correctives for human memory -- methods of gathering evidence and interpreting evidence.

There is an interesting tidbit along those lines. Married couples remember thei own past better when they are together than when they are apart. Having multiple sources of evidence is better than having a single source.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Any police training group can happily demonstrate that witnesses frequently fail to recall key elements of an event correctly.

I like that. And evolutionists can posit with an air of certainty that the earth is billions of years old. If current obserservations of time are as sloppy as you imply, what makes the interpretation of artifacts any more reliable?