An example of the consensus in science that AGW is real.

[zgoldsmith23]

As a biologist, you are probably held to a standard which demands that assertions that can be proven or falsified. AGW Scientists have the unique scientific allowance to be able to make predictions that are never checked for accuracy and assigning causes where no such assignment is justified by proof.

That's certainly not true.

The evidence for adaptability existing is that it exists. What the origin of that adaptability might be is not known whether by science or religion. The acceptance of one theory over the other is only done by faith. Are you asserting that you know the exact and certain cause of life? I was not aware that this had been nailed down. How much life have you created in your lab?

Not claiming that (straw man, perhaps?) However, as you should know if you're going to argue science and the scientific method, a evidence for the claim must be presented before the claim is considered valid. So tell me, what evidence do you have for adaptability other than your circular logic? Besides, evidence for adaptability ≠ evidence for design. If you want to get philosophical, adding more complex things can be reduced via Occam.

So now we are saying that things happen without a cause? What branch of biology asserts magic to be real? Can you please provide an example of something in the real world that has happened without a cause? The flying spaghetti monster and God are not that dissimilar. That is why I asked the question. If there is no hard and fast scientific answer, those who find comfort in a supreme being are justified in finding it.

You're applying a posteriori standard to an a priori claim. Again, no, it's not the same. Since we're shifting this to philosophy, we will argue there. You have, essentially, presented the classic "Unmoved Mover" argument. If I grant you the universe needs a cause, you claim "goddidit." However, when I apply your own standard to yourself and beg the question "what caused god?" you will undoubtedly claim "he's the alpha and the omega" or "he doesn't need a cause." Well then why "god" but not the universe?" Again, apply Occam and see what's left. Science is a quest for knowledge, not comfort. Sorry you don't see that.

Does Science choose an answer to be correct because it's as good as anything I could hypothesize? I mean non-AGW Science?

But they're not as good. Plus, there's evidence for vacuum fluctuations and particles-antiparticles. There's no evidence for "design."

 

[code1211]

That's certainly not true.



Not claiming that (straw man, perhaps?) However, as you should know if you're going to argue science and the scientific method, a evidence for the claim must be presented before the claim is considered valid. So tell me, what evidence do you have for adaptability other than your circular logic? Besides, evidence for adaptability ≠ evidence for design. If you want to get philosophical, adding more complex things can be reduced via Occam.



You're applying a posteriori standard to an a priori claim. Again, no, it's not the same. Since we're shifting this to philosophy, we will argue there. You have, essentially, presented the classic "Unmoved Mover" argument. If I grant you the universe needs a cause, you claim "goddidit." However, when I apply your own standard to yourself and beg the question "what caused god?" you will undoubtedly claim "he's the alpha and the omega" or "he doesn't need a cause." Well then why "god" but not the universe?" Again, apply Occam and see what's left. Science is a quest for knowledge, not comfort. Sorry you don't see that.



But they're not as good. Plus, there's evidence for vacuum fluctuations and particles-antiparticles. There's no evidence for "design."

Which part isn't true? The part that biologists have to provide results that make sense in the real world or the part that AGW scientists do not?

Actually, if we employ Occam's Razor, the case for the Creator is enhanced. One step and you're done. I personally don't accept that, but Occam's Razor would have us do so. Neither science nor God needs my consent to exist. The point is that there is no definitive proof that life was poofed into being by coincidence or by God. there is no conclusive proof that the Big Bang or God started the ball rolling. Whatever helps you sleep at night is as good as it gets.

The proof of God or of natural law is that either is eternal. That is a stalemate. I am not arguing in favor of either. It makes no difference to me.

"...as good as anything you could hypothesize" was your phrase, not mine. You were, I think, referring to Threegoofs' spaghetti monster. As far as there being evidence for design, you said it yourself: God did it. If there is anything that guides adaptability whether it be the thinking of man or the generational changing of all species, intelligent design demands that the designer built this in. If you don't happen to like the God did it approach, than natural selection built it in.

It doesn't matter so much as long as it works and there are mechanisms that we can recognize and use. Does it change a biological sequence that exists and is recognizable whether it was dictated as the result of a designer's plan or by natural selection?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why do people continually compare real sciences to AGW Science?

It's like comparing a favorite performance of music to a howling pack of dogs.

Some people are tone deaf, some people are science illiterates.