"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?
You've almost got it. Just not quite in the abstract enough are you. It has nothing to do with claims and labels. It has to do with not knowing. We weren't there - none of us.
I assumed I would be someplace different in my life years ago. Boy did that turn out bad. Why did I assume that? Had little to do with reality and much to do with what I wanted reality to be. I woke up from something of a nightmare 30 minutes ago in that regard. So it's a rather fresh thing yet. The point is, you make your assumptions based on what you want your outcome to be most likely. Else, why would you view any other similar assumption less valid. You don't look at a wrecked car and assume it came from the factory that way. You don't look at an adult human at all 7'4" of basketball player and assume they just popped out of momma that way.
When people have preconcieved notions, they tend to buttress them - not tear them down. When they've buttressed them for so long as to come to depend upon them... realizing the truth is anathema. It's too shattering to let go of.. and some don't - even to the point of madness. And there you are, not mad; but, propping up one assumption with another because of what you'd like to be the case. Else, any assumption regardless of the label going with it would be equally as valid. It just isn't valid in light of what you'd like to be the case. In which case, your priorities on the matter are exposed.
As far as the relationship of energy, matter and time at the creation, babies become men and women. What were energy, matter and time when they were born? Try thinking in the abstract a bit more. I've just asked a question I've never before in my life heard expressed. But, I'm sure it can't be a new question. Someone has asked it before somewhere. Why do you presuppose they sprang from the womb fully formed?