Well, aren't you a petulant little man! Dolphin's (and Setterfirld's) work has been debunked numerous times here on FR, but I'm sure we can dredge up the info yet again, as an appeal to your vanity, as it were.
The evience that you have yet to deal with which I have provided is #1-The Red Shift,
I haven't dealt with it because it isn't relevant to your assertions that all things decay and that the speed of light has decayed.
#2-Measured speed decay from about 1890 to 2000,
You assert as fact that which is in contention. The "decay" has never been "measured," only various experimental values for the speed of light. That a handful of people claim that these measured values constitute evidence that there is in fact a decay in the speed of light does not make it so. It is their conclusion. The issue is whether or not the total body of scientific evidence supports this interpretation of the data.
and #3-Observation that all things decay and to believe the contrary is to go against the natural law.
I'm sorry, but all you have provided us for evidence that "all things decay" is:
****"Observation. A car will rust. A tree will die. People grow old and die. Wood will rot."*****
To assert that those four observations constitute a basis for asserting that "all things decay" would constitutes the single greatest advance in the power of logical induction ever achieved by the mind of man. Four casual observations do NOT form the basis for asserting a scientific principle applicable to all of matter and energy. It is woefully insuufficent evidence to conclude much of anything, other than dead organic matter rots and oxidation is a common phenomonon.
What is the "natural law" that you claim is contrary to the non-decay of photons, protons, neutrinos, and electrons?
Your statement that you agree with a lot more scientists is meaningless to the point.
Very good! You are absolutely correct. My opinion has nothing to do with how the Universe actually works. Just as YOUR opinion, and that of a handful of wayward scientists, has nothing to do with the way it works.
Which brings us back to the fact that the burden of proof is on you to back up your assertion that "everything must decay" and that, as a consequence, the speed of light must have decayed.
Please do not allow this response to interfere with your answering "Physicist's" questions (in reply # 156 & 160); feel free to devote your full attention to telling us the answers to these questions before responding to this reply:
1) how long ago did SN1987a occur, and
2) how fast was the speed of light at that time.
As "Physicist" has stated, ballpark figures will suffice, you needn't strain yourself trying to come up with answers down to the last decimal place.