I am atheist,but I do not like science.

[FallentoReason]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, suppose you observe a certain amount of carbon. You then reason, "In order for this amount, c(t), of carbon to be here, given how much we know was present earlier--say, c(0)--a certain amount of time must have passed, given the half-life of these carbon particles."

My point is, how do you know that the universe didn't come into existence 5 minutes ago with c(t-5) amount of carbon in the particular place you're looking?

Because the studies show that a much longer time has indeed passed. The article explains how a tree from Japan was discovered with 100 000 tree rings. The carbon in each ring matched the theoretical amount of carbon that should be there if we assume the time has indeed passed. So you end up with this discrete set of points on your graph where you can't deny the fact that the ring that should be 1 year old is actually 1 year old, that the tree ring that should be 2 years old .....that the tree ring that is x years old is actually x years old.

My point is that these models assume a certain amount of continuity in the past.

Maybe I should sharpen the question a bit. How do you know that the universe didn't come into existence an instant ago with the appearance of age--so all of your 'memories' are only an instant old, and there is no actual past?

I don't know if you want me to take this as explicitly being a philosophical question now. In terms of philosophy, I'm somewhat inclined to believe there is actually no present. One second ago is considered the past and one second from now is considered the future. 1 x 10^-99 seconds ago is considered the past and 1 x 10^-99 seconds from now is considered the future. The past and the future by definition take up all the space on the time line leaving what appears to be no single 'instant' that can be defined as 'now'. I obviously went on a tangent here.. but I just don't really understand how to make meaning of your question. I think there's more than enough evidence to show the universe wasn't 'created an instant ago'. Is 6 000 years an instant?