Poor Westwall. I destroyed a main tenet of his religious faith, and he's not taking it well. That's why he's evading by screaming his debunked scripture louder, instead of debating.
Again, I point out that according your loony claims, astrophysics and meteorology aren't science. Since they clearly _are_ science, you're clearly wrong. That's not debatable.
No, cherrypicking and misusing bad definitions won't change that. Science doesn't have to be repeatable in a lab. It has to make predictions that are repeatably correct. That's the repeatability required by the scientific method. A lab is one way to do it, but it's not the only way.
So, how would you go about proving astrophysics repeatably in a lab? If you can't, doesn't that mean you define astrophysics as not being science? Why the double standards?
What is the specific definition of "natural cycle"? After all, to have a theory, you have to define it specifically. You refuse to do so.
And what is the null hypotheses that you tested your religious "it's a natural cycle" alternate theory against?