I had about one and a half pages on Word in response to a lot of this, this morning. Then Word froze and everything was lost. So I figured the Lord was not wanting me to respond at that time and I got up and cleaned the house and made phone calls and took care of home business!
Came back tonight and there is no way I have time to respond to everything I would like to, but a few things stand out that I would like to respond to.
1. By giving the original unicellular organisms an hour reproduction/maturation (or generation time) instead of twenty minutes, I tried to slant it in favor of evolution. If the generation time was uniformly approximately twenty minutes for a billion years, then it took THREE TIMES as many generations to get from single cell to multicelled organisms. If this extrapolates into the number of generations needed for more complex animals to evolve in even the smallest steps, then evolution has not only run out of time here on earth, but for the entire claimed life of the universe!
2. In E=mc^2, what remains constant is energy. Atomic mass increases, and has been shown to do so: please see the third chart on this URL and the references beneath it: http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs
Please also note that it is not mass as we see it -- you and me and the desk and trees and such -- that changes mass. It is the electron, and, presumably, other extremely small bits. If you compare the charts on that page, you will note that there is an inverse relationship between the speed of light and mass measurements (the top and bottom charts).
3. Discussions on changing speed of light hit the peer-reviewed journals again starting in January of 1999 in Physics Review D. They have continued being written by a number of very competant scientists, none of whom, I believe, is creationist, since then.
4. The original research by Setterfield was simply the gathering of historic data and its analysis. I fail to see what is 'laughable' about that...
He has used the Bohr model of the atom simply as a matter of convenience in teaching. The results are exactly the same with other recent models, but just harder to explain to a lay audience.
5. c has reached a flat point in its curve, evidently, since about 1980, not 1960. Because of a oscillation in the curve, it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years. This does not negate in any way, however, the evidence for an unconstant c in the past. The evidence is too massive to be ignored by any but those determined to ignore it at any cost.
6. The Cambrian Explosion is excellent evidence for creation.
7. Javaro asked at one point how we can extrapolate back regarding bacteria -- or at least he implied that question. Well, the fossil record shows us the bacteria. They look the same as today. There is no reason at all to think they behaved any differently.
It interests me that if the data from today, when extrapolated backwards, seems to suit some of the people here, they go with it as clear evidence of evolution. But when some of the data we have about processes today is extrapolated backward and is shown to give evolution a problem, it is denied.
Ah, the intricacies of the evolutionary argument!