Civ2, most of what you've posted here is such a steaming pile of non-logic that I'd assume you were just trolling us all, were it not all so consistent.
But for the sake of argument, lets look at your wonderful examples.
A very simple example:
You see a brick wall 0f 1000 bricks TODAY.
Everyday, during the past OBSERVED 500 days, a guy was coming and ADDING a brick to it.
Thus, you OBSERVABLY know, that 500 days ago the wall was 500 bricks high and it grew at the 1 brick/day STEADY rate.
Now, CAN you extrapolate it backwards, and say that this wall MUST be 1000 days old, with that same steady growth pace?
NO!
Cause on the day -501 someone BROUGHT a 500-brick wall and put it there!
Can you check it/ know it?
No way, you could only observe it since the NEXT day.
Not so! Brick walls have a few characteristics we can rely on to observe it's growth rate.
Consider the mortar in between the bricks. Generally speaking, the latter 500 bricks will be laid down in mortar of slightly different composition, since the mortar would dry out overnight, and thus needs to be remixed every day. The 500 bricks laid down in one day would presumably have the same mortar composition. The difference would be minute, but if you really wanted to, you could check it.
You can also observe the rate at which the bricks have weathered. The newer bricks will have suffered less environmental degradation. Since the bricks have been laid down day by day, you might even be able to see with your unaided eyes the order the bricks were laid down, as older bricks will fade in the sun, and be eroded by dust and water.
Even if the first 500 bricks were assembled 1 day at a time somewhere else, then moved to the location we are observing, there will be signs for those who look. The degradation suffered by those 500 bricks will be different from other bricks in the locality. They might have different compositions from other locally manufactured bricks if they were made far away. They might also be made with a different technique if they were made far away, or long ago. Same goes for the mortar in this case.
This is a particularly interesting example, since this is an exercise that anthropologists actually do from time to time. They can examine ruined walled towns, and ball park the rate at which town walls were built. Newer walls will use new materials and techniques, and generally be built in layers. Older walls will be more degraded. Demolished walls will leave tell tale signs in the earth they once compressed.
Another example:
You see a huge tree.
You know the rate of tree growth.
Can you be SURE, that this tree was PLANTED here at your calculated time?
Again, NO!
Maybe it was brought here already mature and then replanted.
Can you check that?
Again and again, NO!
Actually, yes! If a tree is transplanted, there will be tell tale signs if you look hard enough. Looking at the growth rings will tell you the rate at which it grew, but also the type of soil it grew in, and the rough composition of that soil. The soil at its prior location would likely be different from the soil at this current location, and you'll at the very least observe the discontinuity.
You could also compare the growth rings with growth rings from trees in it's current areas. If the later half of the rings agree, but our tree's earlier rings don't agree with local trees, then that's a good sign it used to live somewhere else.
You could also dig up the roots and check for damage. Moving a mature tree typically involves severing the longer roots, since they can't be practically excavated or transported. Cutting them will damage them, and leave the equivalent of human scarring. If all of it's roots were scarred like that, that would be a good sign it had been moved.
You see how easy it is? I've made hypotheses about the origins of the tree and the wall. And I'm not even a tree or wall expert. Now we can do real science by going and looking for evidence the hypotheses suggest. If you find that evidence, odds are the tree or wall were once moved whole. If you can't find any, then odds are it's just a tree or wall that slowly grew/was built there. The point is, since you've questioned the origin of those things, we don't just have to blindly accept one hypothesis. We can make more and search for evidence of those too.
Leo
Well, not surprised TOO MUCH...
You are just another product of the same scientification dogma.
This here is your whole problem. You everyone here disagreeing with you as conforming to one great dogma. Any new person who did so you'd accuse of following the same dogma. But really we all share pretty different views about religion and science. We do all agree about things like evolution, the origin of the earth, gravity, relativity and such, but that's just because there's all the evidence in the world to suggest these things are correct, and no evidence to disprove them.
1. I'm not artificially making up distinctions, I'm using the same scientific method: "unproved until proved".
And for that, we must have solid proof, and the most solid one, is HUMAN OBSERVATION.
Once again, you betray yourself. Science's proof's go way beyond human observation. Take for example the electron. Surely you'd agree they exist, since so much is built up on their existence and our knowledge about how they behave. Yet nobody has ever actually seen an electron, because that's impossible. They're simply too small. We can get other objects to interact with them, and then observe those other objects, but you'll never, ever, ever see an electron with your own eyes.
Quantum physicists were willing
to risk destroying the Earth with a Black Hole in order to settle a 'debate' between competing theories!
Well played sir.
