I already explained this.
"But you haven't put forth a better scientific explanation. The expanding universe model fits better than the others. You need to come up with a good reason other than "maybe it has an intrinsic property of being blue."
I already gave you all the information you need to answer this one too.
"I am absolutely willing to throw out the expanding universe model if something better comes along. I've also volunteered here on FR to be the one who comes forth with science disproving evolutionary theory. This is because I know two things: 1) science is improved when newer, better theories replace old ones, and 2) I'd be rich and famous."
You don't seem capable of understanding what I've been telling you.
Maybe some other time...
I haven't seen where, except where you broadly paint entire areas of science as "philosophical."
I already gave you all the information you need to answer this one too.
Not even close. You just put Andromeda as an unexplained exception. Remember, this isn't about what model is "true" or "false," but what model best explains.
You don't seem capable of understanding what I've been telling you.
You have been telling me I take a "philosophical" approach, while I've been showing you I take a methodological approach. You simply don't want to accept that, because according to you anyone who disagrees must be taking a "philosophical" approach. It is a convenient way of avoiding those things that methodological science has produced that you disagree with.