@dga471, you were mentioned here:
However, if one’s hermeneutical and theological commitments seem to require a recent, de novo created A&E who are UGAs, then one’s demand for positive evidence may become less important and one’s tolerance for low probability events that have not been disproven increases.[xxi] Physics graduate student Daniel Ang, a moderator on the Peaceful Science forum, encapsulates this essential difference in GAE’s approach well, and I refer interested readers to his discussion.
Though, I would point out the error in the quote that @dga471 uses (from another author, not @dga471 ):
Swamidass brushes aside Tasmania’s isolation as unreasonable and impossible to demonstrate.
That is not true. I explained that concluding Tasmania was isolated is reasonable, not unreasonable, but that concluding that it was not isolated is reasonable too, because the evidence is not definitive.