former speed of light

What are you asking for ? Is it evidence or is it all right to just make things up as you are doing ?If you want evidence then I guess that you are either going to have to explain your speculations to the point where someone else is in a position to make testable distinctions that distinguish your ideas from those within current science.Until your idea IS scientific, then expecting scientific answers is unreasonable. If you want people to take your crazy ideas seriously you need to go beyond dreaming up crazy ideas. Dreaming up crzy ideas is just too easy. Are you prepared to do the work to go beyond that and make your ideas scientific ?

I say that your ideas are crazy because they're just wild ideas that you seem to have made up on the spot with no real basis in reality.If you believe that the "light" experience in NDE's is physical light form some other "dimension" (in a New-age sense of "dimension" divorced from scientific use of the word) then you need to actually produce some sort of evidence (if it IS physical light then it ought to be shining into the subject's eyes - done any tests on that ?)The idea that humans evolved from creatures we classify as bacteria is founded on many long years of scientific study. It is scientific because peopel actually DID do the work you refuse to do. And because bacteria are NOT radically different in the same way your "spirit" world is. A eukaryotic bactrium has a lot in common with a human cell. And that is just one piece of the evidence that links them.

Well until you clearly propose what you are talking about and suggest ways in which it could be tested you're going to be disappointed. And please don't try to present your laziness as some sort of evidence that your idea is correct.

You did indeed talk about NDE's - you stated "What about the light at the end of the tunnel so many people see in a near death experience? "
NDE is a common abbreviation for "near death experience".Are you saying that that light is the physical light we experience in this universe ? If so what is your evidence ?And unless you are going to say that angels have a physical biological from then they are radically different from both you and the germs.

The answer's right there in Genesis. The "separated" light and darkness are day and night. So it is talking about the day/night cycle.Why the author thought they needed separating is another matter - but it's a pre-scientific work and maybe it seemed natural to him that the created light would be "mixed" with darkness.

OK now you have given the extra detail that your claim is intended to explain distant starlight you are clearly wrong.For instance light travelling at infinite speed would have already gone past us and been lost - infinite speed will cover any finite distance in zero time.. Thus the light we see now was emitted at a finite speed.

So your point is that if you are allowed to make up whatever unfounded assumptions you want you can explain anything away. Very true. That's why it's a bad idea to rely on making up unfounded assumptions.

So your idea of a solid foundation is that you made it upWell there's no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is there ?

So if you make something up, and SAY it's in the Bible - even though it isn't - THAT'S a solid foundation.Next you'll be calling people biased if they prefer to base their beliefs on the evidence rather than your fantasies.

Of course I can. I pointed out that your idea that a "spiritual universe" seperating from the physical universe was unfounded. You stated that the claim did have a foundation - and when asked to give that foundation you stated that it was the Bible. So where does the Bible say that ?