[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.

[Havoc]

But there's nothing wrong with making inferences based upon existing observations

Inference or assumption is all the same thing. What you observe is one thing. Assuming what you observe has always been that way is as valid as looking at Mt St. Helens and assuming it's always looked the way it looks now. I use that as an obvious example because we know it has not. On the other hand, there are countless regions we could look at and make any number of assumptions about - any of them could be valid or non of them. Picking one and pontificating on it doesn't make it valid - it just makes that assumption the one you like.

Biblical literalism has zero to do with it. Taking the Bible seriously is rather the issue. And it isn't "Biblical" literalism many of you have a problem with.. it's language literalism you eschew - wanting to change the meaning of language to allow you to say something the language doesn't contextually support.

As for the "serious consequences" you speak of for variable rates, you assume you know what you're talking about. If you don't know the environ and how it all happened, you can't possibly speak to the impact of a variable rate. Ie, pull the other one. You're trying to tell us that wind speed is a factor in bullet travel even when the bullet travels through a vacuum as it were. Wind doesn't exist in a vacuum, therefore, it would not affect the travel of the bullet. You also don't know the rate of change if it did happen. Without knowing rate of change or environment, you sit there and say it's impossible. How big a moron do you take the planet for?! This is part of what we speak about consistently. You don't know, therefore you pontificate what you'd like to be the case in ignorance hoping everyone lets you get by with it. We're not ignoring reality, we're just ignoring your spin.