Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time
Ok then Andy, What empirical data? Oh that's right, you don't have any, do you? I mean if you actually had empirical data you would present it and properly cite it, but you don't, so why is it?
and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime.
And what measurement do you use to determine the universe's lifetime? The standard widely accepted one or the fringe young earth creationist one that doesn't even cover the length of recorded history?
You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one.
I'm sorry, but just exactly how is that a "political" statement? Since when has the speed of light in a vaccum been a political position? The speed of light in a vaccum was not calculated by "liberal activists", it was calculated by scientists who likely, and rightly so, did not consider there to be any political implications to a measurement.
The speed of light is not now, nor has it ever been, a political position of either party, despite your idiotic attempts to make it so. And despite what your delusions of mediocrity may tell you, you are neither the face, nor the voice of conservatism, you represent, at best, a small fringe of the far, far right wing. That is why you are routinely mocked by liberals and conservatives alike. You are a joke Andy, a fucking joke. What you percieve as people laughing with you is actually people laughing at you. You are like a fool in the rain without the good sense to come inside.
Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?
Then by all means present your data and put it through peer review, and once it gets trashed as the junk science that it is you can join the junk science lecture circuit with the flat earthers, homeopaths, and your fellow creationists and bitch about how "big science" is opressing you.
Until you present this ephemeral data *ahem* "empirical data" that you alone seem to possess, you aren't going to appeal to anyone with a modicum of basic common sense. But that isn't the point of Conservapedia is it? In fact a simple look at the history of Conservapedia shows that it is little more than a vehicle to gather a bunch of half educated sycophants to stroke your ego and tell you that you are right on whatever subject you think you are an expert on. All one has to do to see that is look through the Consevapedia archives and see how long it takes before someone to get banned after they disagree with the great Andy Schafly.
