Yes, I just affirmed the Big Bang Theory, over its first 24 hours anyway; it's just that I use Magueijo lightspeed decay to question the OEC assumption.

I do reject macroevolution due to the Klee diagrams as I hinted. The simple fact is that abiogenesis requires instant assembly of a self-replicating organism, which the Minimal Genome Project puts at about 500,000 base pairs for the bacterium "Synthia". This is so mathematically improbable to be called technically impossible (given the size of spacetime). So when the creationist simply proposes 10,000 instances of abiogenesis as opposed to 1, he's not proposing anything less impossible. Suddenly fixity of species is back on the table!

Yeah, there are ideas about God's perspective being relatively six days but not mechanically so. That might end up being isomorphic with mine, in time. My idea comes from Setterfield and Dolphin that it really is mechanically six days, and that lightspeed has changed in the past (based on Setterfield's radiation measurements as well as the sketchy history of lightspeed measurement). The evidence for this is that the recent invention of dark matter and dark energy has no function other than to create indetectable agents to rightly measure the total mass of the universe. Well, it might be easier to get the mass and timeframe of the universe to add up rightly if you just start tweaking lightspeed, which is being explored as a real scientific possibility by a few folks, than by inventing a new undetectable substance that is greater than all detected mass but sits and does nothing but provide gravity to hold the universe together for the billions of years imagined. So I do like to throw about the "evolution stumpers" regularly.

I do change my view if it doesn't successfully account for new facts. Getting back to OP, that's exactly what scientists will have to do if we keep finding interstellars overtaking the sun from the south with a high frequency contrary to prediction.