Peanut Gallery for the Keys/RAZD Debate

Raz has produced reams and reams and reams of independently corroborated evidence that all lead to the conclusion that the earth and the universe are very old.Although this is indisputably the correct method from any scientific point of view I can't help thinking that it is not the best way of tackling the creationist viewpoint purely in terms of debating tactics.The detailed presentations of evidence are frankly a bit wasted on Simple, and more generally his fellow, often scientifically illiterate, creationist colleagues as well.Yes - Any such debate can be considered a spectacle for the viewing public and Raz's tactics have led to some exceptionally educational material being presented. However I think with his highly detailed presentations of evidence he is effectively preaching to the converted.Most creationists will not wade through the lengthy and detailed arguments. As such Simple's protestations that all of Raz's data is based on the assumption that things in the past were the same as they are now and that this cannot possibly be known, will seem a perfectly legitimate complaint.How can Raz make simply and concisely clear that all the different independently corroborated evidences he has already presented point to the same conclusions - both regarding the ages of the Earth/universe and the constancy of the physical factors involved??Purely as a debating tactic I think Raz should keep it simple (no pun intended) and stick to the evidences already presented from this point on.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I still think that there is an opportunity to expose Simple's position for what it is to a wider audience.A casual observer of the debate so far, I fear, would grasp the gist of Raz's various evidences but feel that all this overwhelming detail counts for little if, as simple asserts, it is all based on the implicit and unaccounted-for assumption that physical laws and phenomenon have remained constant and unchanged.As things stand it would take quite a lot of effort on the part of the reader to work out why this is not quite the case.Raz, as we all know from this thread and numerous others, is excellent at presenting detailed evidence and analysis.However what is now required, in my opinion, is a concise and simple explanation, referring to the evidence already presented where necessary, as to.....Why -1) It is reasonable to assume that physical laws and phenomenon have remained constant
2) Independently corroborated evidences point overwhelmingly to this conclusion and hence to the old age of the Earth/universe.
3) Predictions are the most rigorous test of any theory and that those discussed in the detailed evidences already presented point overwhelmingly both to the constancy of physical laws and the old age of the Earth/universe
4) The alternatives which have been implied, but not properly presented, by Simple lead to inherently contradictory physical laws which remain unobserved, uncorroborated and which are impossible to test by prediction.In this way Simple's position can be slowly chipped away until all he has left is undisguised denial.For the wider audience, if not the challenge of doing so, I think this would be worthwhile.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.