1.) You can see. Since our cones and rods are constant during our lifetimes, if the speed of lite changes, the wavelengths of light reaching our eyes would change, and we would no longer see in regular light.

2.) Light is simply one form of electromagnetic radiation, which includes IR, UV, and Micro- and Radio waves. If C slows down, so would all the other forms of radiation... and nothing we have based on these technologies could function.

3.) The assumed "variations" in the speed of light generally noted by proponents of the theory are FAR more likely to be generated by the varying sensitivity of the instruments and measurements used to determine light's speed. The speed they got in 1800 using reflectivity is NOT going to be the speed they get in 1995 using the vibrations of an atom. They could also be created using flaws in the original data, see "Vulcan" and "Planet X." below.

Vulcan: Hypothetical planet once presumed to exist between Mercury and the Sun, due to perceived variations between Mercury's predicted orbit and actual appearances. However, Mercury's variations were actually produced by the gravitational warping of space near the sun (See: Einstein's theory of Relativity -- which, by the way, also depend on C being constant), and thusly Vulcan was discarded.

Planet X: Hypothesized due to apparent variations in the orbit of Neptune. Led to the discovery of Pluto, but Pluto was far too small to account for the variations, so astronomers spent years looking for "Planet X." It is now virtually a certainty that the percieved variations were due to imperfect measurements of Neptune's location, speed, mass, etc.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

2) "If C slows down, so would all the other forms of radiation... and nothing we have based on these technologies could function."

Why, praytell, not? Why is, say, a radio transmitter dependant on the speed of light remaining at a specific value?

3) "The assumed "variations" in the speed of light generally noted by proponents of the theory are FAR more likely to be generated by the varying sensitivity of the instruments and measurements used to determine light's speed."

As I pointed out when this first came up, the variations were well outside the margin of error for the instruments in use. There were cases in which the same scientists used the exact same tools decades later and STILL registered a decrease far greater than could be accounted for by the margin of error.

It comes to mind that since SI is now entirely defined by atomic vibrations and the wavelength of light (with the exception of the platinum block in Paris that defines the kilogram), if neither is constant, then a meter is gradually getting longer, as is a second.

"The speed they got in 1800 using reflectivity is NOT going to be the speed they get in 1995 using the vibrations of an atom."

This brings up another point. The data gathered in the last fifty years or so was gathered with atomic clocks. This is only valid if you assume that the vibrational frequency of any given atom is constant. If the speed of light and vibrational frequency were both decreasing at the same rate, then by measuring C using tools based around the vibrational frequency of an atom, you're obviously going to get the same answer every time. So is there any reason to assume that C and the vibrational frequency of whatever atom they use in atomic clocks are not both decreasing at the same rate?

On the one hand, we have the statement that c is constant in all reference frames. This includes time. Remember, it was Einstein who introduced the concept of space and time being the exact same thing. If light must be a constant speed in all spatial reference frames, then it necessarily follows that it does so in all temporal ones as well.

On the other, we have a value of c that, per Omega, remains constant in all spatial frames but not all temporal ones. Ignoring for the moment whether this is actually possible or not, under what circumstances can this occur? What mechanism exists that effects light simultaneously everywhere in the universe, causing it to slow? Remember that any such mechanism must be traveling instantaneously, and hence violates relativity, unless you are willing to start invoking bizarre quantum effects. (You could, for instance, state that every photon in the universe is entangled with every other one, as in the experiments performed recently regarding the phenomenon of quantum teleportation. However, were this so, anything that affects one photon does so to all of them. Seeing as how the entire universe doesn't shift when I reflect my flashlight off a mirror, this does not seem to hold water.)

So ultimately, we have one theory that demands a constant velocity of c. This theory has had all of its parts tested rigorously for the past century, and seems to be as accurate as we can make it. On the other, we have a demand for slowing c, unsupported by any evidence, demanding some sort of unobserved mechanism that violates physics as we currently understand it. Now I ask you, which is more likely to be correct?

------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.

(Yes, there is a point to the above).

------------------
"Remeber, if there is a nuclear explosion, be sure to close your windows as the massive heat could cause objects within your home to catch fire".

Wise, wise words.

This is based on the assumption that we know exactly what it was made of, and its EXACT design, which we don't.

"The flood would have left hugh amounts of evidence of which there is none"

Look at the bottom of the Atlantic sometime.

"What mechanism exists that effects light simultaneously everywhere in the universe, causing it to slow?"

You have to look at it another way. Think of the spacial universe as a cube (sphere, whatever) traveling at c (whatever that may be) through time. In this model, a photon only exists at one point in time. The universe hits the photon, and it appears to travel through the universe at c, when it's really the universe traveling through the photon (from our current frame of reference). This model seems to fit in pretty well with the superstring theory, as I understand it. Now your question becomes "Why would the universe slow down in time?" My response is that the question should be "Why would the universe remain at a constant speed through time?" Disorder will always increase. Things decay. Why would the universe taken all together not follow the same law?

"unsupported by any evidence"

Wrong. Quite a bit of evidence, as I've pointed out.

Tec:

"a little something called carbon dating"

You might want to find out how radiocarbon dating works sometime. It's another time that evolutionists assume a value to have always been constant, when there's good reason to assume it hasn't.

Ummmm.....I don't think it's that difficult to figure out what materials comprised the ark's constructions. At the time, there were only a few viable construction materials: wood, stone, copper (bronze), & reed derivatives like the Egyptians used.

I'm fairly sure we can discount stone & bronze--they don't float very well. Reed derivatives don't have any real structural stability to support the weight/mass of 1 pair each of all the world's fauna plus Noah's family......that pretty much leaves wood.

Wait, I am home. And affect/effect has long been my achilles heel. Along with its/it's. Also, I really don't care.

"You have to look at it another way."

I see. So light doesn't really move in Nature's Harmonic Four Day Time Cube? Perfect sense. You didn't happen to learn about string theory and thermodynamics from the same source, did you?

"Quite a bit of evidence, as I've pointed out."

To borrow a page from your book, I can't remember you pointing out a single bit of evidence anywhere ever that was not refuted.

"It's another time that evolutionists assume a value to have always been constant, when there's good reason to assume it hasn't."

You might want to take your own advice and learn what radiocarbon dating is used for. Here's a hint, not for dating rocks.

But who wants to date rocks? Sure, they're cheap, don't ask for much, & never really have "issues"....but you can't really dress 'em up & take 'em anywhere..& they're really piss-poor sexually...not to MENtion all the bitching about "erosion" this & "mining" that....

Listen, if ANYBODY possessed the technology to make ships as big as the ark is supposed to have been, the Spanish would have found a way to make ships just as big (and using slightly more modern materials) to bring gold back from the new world. But they didn't. Because the technology doesn't exist. There has always been (and still is) an upper limit to how big wooden ships can be. But the Bible writers, being primarily landlubbers, didn't know that.

And if go all Atlantean on us and suggest some 'lost supertechnology' that only Noah possessed, I swear I'll slap you.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi