The short version is that your response to opacity, when admittedly hasty simplifying statements and light remarks are removed, mostly just restates that excess energy has always been your concern. You have not found in my explanation a sufficient phenomenological narrative to explain why the math works and the excess energy is not a problem. As we both study this, I think we will come up with that explanation together.
But more troubling and as I suspected, you are not answering what you would do if suddenly the evidence appeared to you to conclusively support Setterfield. Instead you compare him to a desperate attorney. For me, before reading Setterfield, I handled old-young-earth questions saying, "I believe young earth, but recognize it is against old earth evidence, so will respect the views of the science leadership establishment as worthy of investigation." After Setterfield (and multiple confirmation by scientists before and after 1987, and my own independent analysis), I can argue, "I believe evidence adduced for old earth actually supports a young earth." However, if Setterfield should fail on a little thing like opacity, I will be happy to concede to the prior position and admit that science seems to falsify the Setterfield version of a young earth, even though I still believe in it for religious and minority-scientific reasons. Are you able to do the same and admit reasonable doubt if the explanations should warrant?
You say we "must at least establish some reasonable doubt that mainstream assumptions of continuity in basic processes of physics are right." That is, you don't reasonably doubt the mainstream yet. As I said, usually statistical significance is accepted as reasonable doubt. Usually greater explanatory power is accepted as reasonable doubt. I forgot to mention Montgomery 1998 added explanatory power by naming three more puzzles of physics answered by VSL: supernova remnants, helium diffusion in zircon, and spiral preservation in galaxies. Perhaps you would like to move to philosophy of science, and establish a standard which you would submit to as proving a given theory. Let's both continue studying and see what enlightenment comes.
I find these claims to be, frankly, Messianically delusional. I give Setterfield more time than he deserves because I'm a hobbyist. I'm not a wannabee physicist. My major 34 years ago was in Psychology. I'm a wannabee shrink.
Setterfield is a crackpot. He flies under the radar of real science. His "refereed" publications are in some creationist journal utterly unknown to real physicists and astronomers. They don't even see him. That's why I'm scratching around trying to figure this garbage out for myself. There are no links from the great debate to Google up. There is no great debate.
It's all in your head. And that's why I talk to you.
Are you able to do the same and admit reasonable doubt if the explanations should warrant?
I can't imagine what I would do if someone irrefutably proved that 1 + 1 = 3. There is in fact a lovely algebraic proof that 1 = 2 which might be used for such a demonstration, however.
So look for a lot of initial skepticism when everything I think I know about how the world works is wrong. I'll be checking for the gimmick. I'm already pretty old and may die before I conclude there is no gimmick.
But you couldn't be farther from giving me that problem. Every time cDK is trotted out to me, I see the divide by zero. No wonder the real scientists don't even bother with this. And, yes, if ever some day I can't find it, I'll probably still think it's there.