That, again, is assumption - that current conditions existed in the beginning or in the distant past. I have made it very clear that is an assumption you cannot sustain. You may think it "reasonable". It is not reasonable because nobody has seen the beginnings of a world before, much less one like ours. So there is no data from which to presume that such an assumption fits a norm such that it would fit the category of "reasonable" postulations.
If I see an accident with no skidmarks at the scene and the ground is dry, it is reasonable to assume the brakes were not applied on either vehicle in the accident. It is reasonable to presume this because based on observation, we know what happens when the brakes are applied.
You would like to argue a set of concepts and just have all your assumptions accepted as though they were "reasonable". And in some cases, your assumptions are implied, as with the arguments presented - heat levels would be higher if your assumptions hold true. Problem is, there is nothing to base reasonability of the assumption on, so, you're postulating an irrelevancy as though it were something relevant. Until you can establish conditions, You have no argument to contest with anymore than you have a worthwhile theory to begin with. That is my entire point. Until you start assuming things, you have no theory. And most of the things you assume have no relevant observable data that can be reviewed to determine the "reasonableness" of the assumptions. But, how about if we assume you wrote a will and assume you left everything to me and assume that everything amounted to 10 million. Now let's assume you just died yesterday and someone else is actually manning your internet presence. Based on all my assumptions, I'm now a multimillionaire. Are my assumptions unreasonable. Yes. But by your standard they'd be totally reasonable and even worth pontificating on.
"That, again, is assumption - that current conditions existed in the beginning or in the distant past.
I think we have a communication problem here. My only assumption was that current conditions are current, what we observe today and what we have observed over the last hundred years is valid to determine the light speed curve at the modern end, not the beginning. As far as the conditions in the past, those are determined by the creationist claim in question. The claim was that the distance to stars is not a reliable indicator of time required for light to reach earth because the speed of light was faster at that time. Given a distance to the farthest star, whatever it may have been 6000 years ago, allows us to calculate the speed of light at that time. Simple math.
"I have made it very clear that is an assumption you cannot sustain. You may think it "reasonable". It is not reasonable because nobody has seen the beginnings of a world before, much less one like ours. So there is no data from which to presume that such an assumption fits a norm such that it would fit the category of "reasonable" postulations.
Am I correct in thinking you are saying even E=MC2 is suspect and may not have been true at creation?
"If I see an accident with no skidmarks at the scene and the ground is dry, it is reasonable to assume the brakes were not applied on either vehicle in the accident. It is reasonable to presume this because based on observation, we know what happens when the brakes are applied.
"You would like to argue a set of concepts and just have all your assumptions accepted as though they were "reasonable". And in some cases, your assumptions are implied, as with the arguments presented - heat levels would be higher if your assumptions hold true. Problem is, there is nothing to base reasonability of the assumption on, so, you're postulating an irrelevancy as though it were something relevant. Until you can establish conditions, You have no argument to contest with anymore than you have a worthwhile theory to begin with. That is my entire point. Until you start assuming things, you have no theory. And most of the things you assume have no relevant observable data that can be reviewed to determine the "reasonableness" of the assumptions. But, how about if we assume you wrote a will and assume you left everything to me and assume that everything amounted to 10 million. Now let's assume you just died yesterday and someone else is actually manning your internet presence. Based on all my assumptions, I'm now a multimillionaire. Are my assumptions unreasonable. Yes. But by your standard they'd be totally reasonable and even worth pontificating on.
The only case where my assumptions would be a problem is if nothing we know now was valid at the start. Why would we assume that?