The speed of light in a vacuum has a constant speed. Sorry to break it to you, but this experiment, conducted in an exotic environment does not damage the Theory of Evolution or the evidence for an old universe.

Additionally, there are mounds of evidence beside stellar distances that show that the universe is old. So even if this special circumstance can be shown to be natural, there is still plenty of evidence that supports an old universe.

What relationship are between Evolution (a biological life theory, not religion) with Geology or Astronomy? i don`t understand that, theres no direct relation, and a theory isn`t a religion, it could be dumped for another theory (better)

and of course, Ban Firefox is against god, you are against god.

The speed of light in a vacuum has a constant speed. Sorry to break it to you, but this experiment, conducted in an exotic environment does not damage the Theory of Evolution or the evidence for an old universe.

Were interstellar space a complete vacuum you might have a point, but like most followers of the religion of Evolution you miss the obvious. Space is full of things that can affect light. 

Additionally, there are mounds of evidence beside stellar distances that show that the universe is old. So even if this special circumstance can be shown to be natural, there is still plenty of evidence that supports an old universe.

Hardly. All conjecture built on guesses built on assumptions built on desperate hope that your religion is actually more than a laughable myth.

What relationship are between Evolution (a biological life theory, not religion) with Geology or Astronomy? i don`t understand that, theres no direct relation, and a theory isn`t a religion, it could be dumped for another theory (better)

Your religion falls apart based on flaws from many areas including both physics, astronomy as well as biology and anthropology. Trying to play a shell game by claiming it is only about biology just shows your willingness to avoid the truth to accept the myth

and of course, Ban Firefox is against god, you are against god.

Makes as much sense as anything else people form the religion of Evolution spout.

Your religion falls apart based on flaws from many areas including both physics, astronomy as well as biology and anthropology...

You're patching together every scientific viewpoint you come across that you find ideologically unfit, mixing in a good dose of conspiracy theory, and casting it together as this evil evolutionary religion.  It's serving as a foil in a self-aggrandizing story running in your head that casts you as the anointed crusader of light, gifted with the True Sight, and those who disagree with you as the witless playthings of darkness.

I'm all for avoiding the consecration of Einstein's work, he was brilliant but no more than a man.  But your reaction to this simply portrays weakness in your own faith, makes it seem as insubstantial as cobwebs... otherwise, how could anyone react so caustically and biliously, with violence and insinuation hurled across the web, in response to a pedestrian announcement about some numbers that came out on a ticker tape on a beeping machine in a lab somewhere in Germany?

You should be as a rock in your certainty and faith.  To a virtuous true believer news like this should be as a single drop of rain hitting the slopes of Mount Sinai unnoticed.  But for you it's like hitting a wading pool full of jello with a baseball bat.  Your own ego sends veins and roots all in and through these things you hold as pure truth, invading and twisting and deforming, made surrogate to your own vanity, made brittle, revealing them weakened and crumbling in the face of the most passive challenge. This is why you're compelled to rant about the flaws and intellectual sins of all these people you fear would disagree with you.

Dishonest scales are an abomination to the LORD,But a just weight is His delight.

When pride comes, then comes shame;But with the humble is wisdom.

The integrity of the upright will guide them,But the perversity of the unfaithful will destroy them.

Proverbs 11:1-3, NKJV

Were interstellar space a complete vacuum you might have a point, but like most followers of the religion of Evolution you miss the obvious. Space is full of things that can affect light.

Yes, there are plenty of things in interstellar space that can affect the velocity of light, however, they have all been shown to reduce the speed of light. There is no evidence of superluminal velocities in interstellar space or even in natural settings. This demonstration of superluminal velocities takes place in a purely artificial environment. Unfortunately people with a poor understanding of science won't understand that fact and will draw flawed conclusions from the results present, such as the conclusions you have drawn.

All conjecture built on guesses built on assumptions built on desperate hope that your religion is actually more than a laughable myth.

The evidence for special creation are far more dubious since there is no data OR evidence that is verifiable to support it.

If you are going to call science a "laughable myth", despite the support of evidence and observable facts, you should at least be consistent and label creation stories as myths as well. The logical inconsistency destroys your whole argument.

Erm, wha???

Dude, sorry to say you completely misunderstood that, light is constantly slower than the 3x10^8 m/s everywhere apart from complete vacuum but going faster than it in the context of complete vacuum is forbidden by general relativity.

Most nuclear reactors glow blue because they spew out particles travelling faster than light in the water coolant and they emit the light as they slow down, but always remain below the 3x10^8 m/s limit that has been imposed.

Trust me am an undergraduate student doing theoretical Physics.

And BTW check out the fsm website, i agree evloution is still unconclusivley proven but you missed the point over the physics. (Plus the proof of the big bang theory and the universe being created by some event relies on the distance to stars and evolution DOES NOT)
(Incase you go away and read up, no star's cannot act as a potential well of such magnitude to correct you're false assumptions)

Stop mixing sciences without grasping the problems.

It is only a THEORY that they are stars. All we know is that they are points of light.

I am so angered by people who think stars are the result of hydrogen fusion. The fact is we don't KNOW.

Once you begin to believe the LIES of physics, you are one step closer to being a liberal and an atheist!

Keep THEORIES like astronomy out of the schools! They are all simply "points of light".

WHAT????

Dude, you are using a computer built based on atomic principles which govern how semiconductors behave and you are saying that these principles are wrong, there is tonnes of EVIDENCE that a star (sun bing in question defined herefore as a star) is a big ball of Hydrogen, there is evidence (neutrino's) that something quantum is happening in this big ball of gas, we don't know what granted but there is strong evidence for this.

I agree it is possible that stars are just dots of light, the moon can be made of cheese and that skeletons were placed by the devil to shake peoples faith, but however is it not possible that as we understand these things on some level that we understand the workings of god's creation and not just take forgranted that a certain text cencored by the roman's is fact.

Again you say the 'LIES' of physics, erm well, you're using a computer, invented, designed by physicists and runs on the same theories which tell us stuff about the stars.

I am not atheist and I don't care for the definition of liberal, but isn't slamming people for being atheist the same as being religiously intollerant?
I am all for people having their views and opinions on things but when it gets the point of burning people at the stake for not agreeing with you how is that not a return to the dark ages and a direct contractiction of 'thou shalt not kill' and/or 'love thy neighbout as you love thyself'?

How are you so angered by people stating that they think a star shines through fusion?
Even if stars are points of light and god created them at some finite point in the past how does this change anything?

And going off topic but how does a star being a point light source contractic what can be shown to be true for light?
This experiment still says that the point source takes time for the light to reach us and that this length of time can be accuratley determined.
The 'LIES' of physics are pretty much none existant here for if light didn't behave as it has been shown to then we would have massive problems with understanding fiber optics, and believe me it's complicated enough already.

I agree Physics can portray itself as a philosphical argument but all you have to do is realise that if your told something, shown something and can do that something yourself then chances are that it happens...

To be honest if you want to keep 'THEORIES' like astronomy out of schools you have the problem of dividing science between experimental science and theory, which in a scientific basis does include creationism. This would be quite good if all this theory could be taught as a large religios course, would give a lot more funding to religius education :)

I can't think of many more vindications for modern Phyics other than the computer and the tv, these rely on 'theory' as to how they work, next you will be arguing the whole:
"we think it works this way but because we can't see it we don't know"
That my friend is philosophy, neither religion or science but an application of the mind.

I think we will have to agree to disagree but I can honestly understand the phrase, 'religion is the opium of the masses'
I am christian by faith and practice and accept what is shown to me by people.
(This includes the inherent contradictions I have found in the bible)

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

1) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)

2) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

What was the exact wording on the cross?

1) “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37)

2) “The King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26)

3) “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:38)

4) “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (John 19:19)

Got to love it, the bible is about as accurate as all human work ever is... full of inherent contradictions :)

HOGWASH!

Theories like electricity or evolution require MORE faith than belief in the Bible. Have you ever seen an electron? Just because things appear to be one thing does not mean that they are that way!

I will gladly continue to use my computer even though it is a mystery how they work.

Science you see is a tool of Satan. He uses astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry and other sciences to lie to us!

The really evil part is, just like astrology and other types of Satanic magic "it works".

This is why I am trying to encourage all parents to keep science out of the class room. Take an active role in letting government and the PTA know that America has had enough of science!

(This includes the inherent contradictions I have found in the bible)

There is no contradictions in the bible, it was only the human mind that was full of contradictions. I have seen some atheist's websites listing all the contradictions they've found in the Bible. But it is just that they MIS_INTERPRET the Scripture. The reality is that people tend to read the Bible as though it was like a newspaper or some sort of a magazine, a book that was written yesterday. Remember a Bible is a book of books written by over 40 authors over a period of more than 1,500 years, yet it remained consistent. Anyway, Evolution theory requires a competent evolutionist to explain it, we do accept them as authoritative in that theory. But an evolutionist who read the Scripture and allegedly found contradictions within it, is NOT credible and not an authoritative person to expound it.

To cite an example of this alleged bible contradictions:

1) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
2) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

Let me quote Barnes:
And he moved David - In 1Ch_21:1 the statement is, “and an adversary” (not “Satan,” as the King James Version, since there is no article prefixed, as in Job_1:6; Job_2:1, etc.) “stood up against Israel and moved David,” just as 1Ki_11:14, 1Ki_11:23, 1Ki_11:25 first Hadad, and then Rezon, is said to have been “an adversary” (Satan) to Solomon and to Israel. Hence, our text should be rendered, “For one moved David against them.” We are not told whose advice it was, but some one, who proved himself an enemy to the best interests of David and Israel, urged the king to number the people.

And the NET's note:
1 sn The parallel text in 1Ch_21:1 says, "An adversary opposed Israel, inciting David to count how many warriors Israel had." The Samuel version gives an underlying theological perspective, while the Chronicler simply describes what happened from a human perspective. The adversary in 1Ch_21:1 is likely a human enemy, probably a nearby nation whose hostility against Israel pressured David into numbering the people so he could assess his military strength. See the note at 1Ch_21:1.