[Havoc]

Similarities have zero to do with it. When you don't know, you can't rule out what you don't know. Yet you want to rule out anything you don't know that doesn't support your theory. That isn't science. And that is the core point. You aren't dealing with evidences, you're dealing with assumptions in place of evidence and modelling based on assumptions. That is the base point of your position - the weakest link. And at that level, your construct is only as good as your assumptions and then only one possible option in a pool of infinite possibility. You chose a fiction you liked and adopted it. Bully for you. But that isn't science.

[Dimensio]

When you don't know, you can't rule out what you don't know.

But there's nothing wrong with making inferences based upon existing observations. You seem to be willing to invent any sort of conjecture not because there's evidence to suggest it, but because you need it to be true to satisfy your need to adhere to Biblical literalism, and then you invent excuses to justify putting your assumptions on the same level as rational science.

Variations in universal constants, such as lightspeed or radioactive decay, would have serious consequences in the observable natural history record of the planet that simply are not observed. The most logical and rational assumption is that such constants -- not observed to change currently -- did not change in the past. You, however, don't like the implications of a millions-of-years-old earth so you invent all manner of excuses to ignore rationality and logic.