Good question if a little sarcastic. See, not knowing whether you're being sarcastic or not, all I can do is try to infer that by assumption. Your track record would suggest you are - which gives me more to go on than you have for your postulations about the beginnings of earth. What's so wrong about not knowing. What's so wrong with admitting you don't know. Investigating the past isn't a crime. Nor is it necessarily foolish. But when you don't know or can't know something is so, it is better to say so than to make stuff up. Truth is always preferred over the lie in my book. In the book of others, that is not the case - agendas seem to get in the way sometimes..
In most cases your assessment of my sarcasm would probably be correct, but in this case I was more interested to see your response; to seee you argue against what I've said, agree with me or even come up with some other option(s).
I think you may have missed the point of my posts. My assumptions of the past in the case of a change in light speed can be deduced by taking current conditions, the proposed conditions of the past, and some basic calculus. There may be no way of proving that the proposed conditions are 100% correct, but it is possible to show that they are 0% correct by showing the consequences those conditions would have on the present.
"What's so wrong about not knowing. What's so wrong with admitting you don't know. Investigating the past isn't a crime. Nor is it necessarily foolish.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing, nor in admitting such. Science, including biology, admits that it doesn't know everything. If it did know everything it would have no reason to pursue any investigation. I don't think I ever suggested that investigation of the past is a waste, or foolish. I feel it to be necessary. Knowing the past and the mechanisms that underly events, gives us a better chance of predicting and mitigating similar events.
"But when you don't know or can't know something is so, it is better to say so than to make stuff up. Truth is always preferred over the lie in my book. In the book of others, that is not the case - agendas seem to get in the way sometimes..
Agendas do get in the way, from all sides, in any debate. However some agendas produce ideas, and their verbalizations, that can be investigated, analyzed, tested and either rejected or adopted. This is why science as it is works. If an agenda causes a scientist to fudge his data and findings, someone, somewhere, with a different agenda will tear into those findings and data and find the errors. Eventually, sometimes very quickly, errors will be eliminated and conclusions drawn that are as humanly accurate as possible. Science by its very nature is adversarial.