["As for the 'law of physics' being changed by a 'capricious agent', on the contrary, it is because God is not capricious that we can count on nature to be constant"]Indeed. That means he can be safely removed from the equation. This is one reason that methodological naturalism was adopted.
"Because God is consistent He is removed from the equation?"
Would you please stop conflating methodological and philosophical considerations.
If God is consistent then the results of experiments/tests/predictions can be taken at face value. When performing an experiment, if you have confidence, based on prior experiments, that the material of the container used will not affect the outcome then you can safely ignore that container in your conclusions.
And He is replaced with what?"
A methodology which has shown itself to be the best way yet discovered to increase our knowledge of the natural world.
See my comment about conflation above.
"Abiogenesis which is impossible"
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with why God is not a part of Methodological Naturalism which is what the discussion is about.
BTW, how do you prove something is impossible?
As for your quote from AiG, they seem to be missing the fact that every dating method is cross verified with others and calibrated according to the conditions of the samples. The scientists who collect the samples and the scientists who run the tests are well aware of the potential problems and adjust to take them into account.
"And you seem to ignore the fact that scientists are people and have preconceptions."
Not at all. I know people have preconceptions, biases, fears, desires and every other emotion which would cause them to misinterpret, fudge, lie, and misrepresent their work. What I am saying is that the process of placing all the data, the analysis methods and the conclusions out in front of thousands of other well trained scientists (not to mention lay persons) who all have a vested interest in having their own opinions accepted so tend to dismiss other work unless that work is impeccable, will force all but the most foolish scientist to make sure his/her work is as clean and accurate as possible.
When a scientists presents a paper, the response is not all smiles and chuckles and pats on the back, it is hard direct questions and doubt. Most scientists I know love to take apart another's work, it is part of the culture and is expected. If you don't have a tough skin you will not make it far in (original research) science.
"There was a recent article on FR on the fallacy of global warming by a scientist who noted that those supporting global warming were doing so on false assumptions about CO2 rates.
Do you have a link?
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with why God is not a part of Methodological Naturalism which is what the discussion is about.
Oh, stop your double-talking.
For Evolution to be viewed as a legimate alternative theory to Creation, it would have to be at least possible.
Nothing you have said has explained how 'something' can exist from nothing and 'life' from non-life.
44. Probability and the Origin of Life
http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay44.htm
'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'-Doyle
Either God is impossible or Evolution is.