the underlying assumptions rig the debate

Others have raised many good points against your OP all of which I tend to agree with.I think another thing to notice is the extent of the mental gymnastics going on here to bring some kind of harmony to the discord between the fact of an old earth/universe and supposed "literalist" theology.Reasons To Believe (Home - Reasons to Believe) do something similar although I find their doctrine to be MUCH more plausible than some kind of time manipulation phenomenon for which we can never verify.I also have problems with the following: You have to have some reason to believe that linear time is scientifically invalid which means you must have some evidence. Others have asked for how you would even begin to find evidence for such a thing so I wont repeat that request here. What I want to point out is that even this discussion of assumptions has a built in assumption for you. Scientific validity or refutation can be based on 'IMO' rather than evidence according to you. I am sorry but this just does not fly.Science DOES have some basic assumptions. One of those is simply that the universe is capable of being objectivly described by us using our senses or an extension of our senses. Based on that, we can construct USEFUL descriptions of the universe to help us understand and make productive advances in civilization. Your proposal is effectivly an abandonment of the basic assumption of science in the sense the universe being capable of being described. We can never know if your idea of a non-linear, non-static time line is in any way valid unless in the future we can somehow examine time from outside of time.Therefore your entire idea is equivalent to a complete abandonment of science as a mechanism and an institution.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Right. Please then provide us the details of where a QM experiment has verifiably altered the past. This being a science forum and all.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

If it is determined then it is still linear. You only get only get another dimension of time if it is variable with respect to more than one parameter.Also, if the past has or has not been determined is also an untestable phenomenon given our current understanding of the universe. Such a test as I said before would require an observation of time outside of time. Linear or not, the test for determination is currently impossible.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

No you just don't understand what I am talking about. If a point in the past is singularly determined then time is STILL linear. It is only not so if I could somehow continually determine a single point in time in which case the result would be many alternate timelines. If you can only determine it once, time is still linear.Also you didn't address at all my point on how you would even tell if a point is time was determined or not.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)