It's good that you are here and are asking interesting questions. Your gracious spirit is a manifestation of God's good work in your life. I pray that I might exhibit the same grace.
I do appreciate that Lisle rejects certain ad hoc arguments for YEC that are essentially appeals for special case miracles.
When Lisle states that work remains to be done on the mathematical details of the gravitational well hypothesis, though, I am puzzled. Ph.D. astronomers like Lisle should be able to make some plausible assumptions to produce a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the effect in short order. Why could Lisle not provide any math? This is not a rhetorical question. I expect scientists to use scientific reasoning, which in astronomy means you are working the mathematical details. No math, no astronomy. Where's the math?
In any case, in the 10 years since he wrote the article, neither he nor any other YEC scientist has produced any such math. I am thus inclined to discard the gravitational well hypothesis for lack of any attempt to provide even a smidgen of scientific evidence.
Second, Lisle's portrayal of the cosmic inflation theory is quite inaccurate. Long before the horizon problem was a consideration, an astronomer named de Sitter had proposed an inflationary model that garnered attention from the theorists. In other words, the inflationary model was not something that was invented fresh to solve the horizon problem; it was already a viable astronomical model.
Moreover, the inflation theory predicts a wide variety of data, as this introductory article explains:
It was written about 4 years before Lisle wrote his article. I am at a loss to explain how a Ph.D. astronomer like Lisle would fail to address well-known empirical evidence for the cosmic inflation theory. You would never know from Lisle's article that the astronomy community already had strong evidence in hand.
Indeed, very strong evidence for cosmic inflation has continued to accumulate in the decade since Lisle's article was published.