Pranking Christian call show

[Statler Waldorf]

All you've proven with this novel of a post is that Christians are experts at apologetics.

If by apologetics you mean a defense of one’s position, then yes I agree.

Also, regarding the Scientific community as a Big Boys' club proves how ignorant you are trying to remain by trying to convince others that science has it out for God.

The secular scientific community doesn’t only have it out for God; they have it out for any theory that opposes their Darwinism. Several of you have already admitted that you’ve ruled out the “God hypothesis” as a valid scientific explanation a priori; but then you turn around and try to claim that your view of science doesn’t have it out for God? Ironic to say the least.

There would have to be a god first for them to be out for him, and, as it currently stands, the evidence is quite lacking in the god department.

No, the very notion of evidence and science prove that God exists. That’s conclusive support.

Also, if the Scientists really are in a club of their own, they get to decide what's science and what's not.

Nope, that’s a circular argument. Since a scientist is simply defined as a person who does science, then we would not be able to tell who the scientists are without first having a clear definition of science. I could just as easily define only creationists as “real” scientists, and then use your same argument to justify my reasoning, “Well since they are the only real scientists then they get to determine what the definition of science is.” I am sorry but it does not work that way. Science has a specific meaning, and what creationists and secularists do both fit that definition, so they are both scientists.

Seeing as they don't regard Creationism as a science, your argument is still falling flat.

Creationists founded modern science; not only this but creation science fulfilled all of the criteria provided by you all for something being “real” science, so it seems it’s your argument that is falling flat. By the way, “secular scientists don’t like creationists” is not an argument.

Could you provide some sources, please?

I could. I am not sure why I always seem to have to do the heavy lifting for you though; it’s not like you’re going to admit you were wrong anyways.

Humphrey’s predictions about what we should find if the Earth’s magnetic field had undergone rapid reversals were first published in the article, “Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood” which was published in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, and later in his article entitled, “Has the earth’s magnetic field ever flipped?” in Creation Research Society Quarterly number 25 in 1988. Humphrey’s predictions were confirmed and detailed in his article in 1990 entitled, “New evidence for rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field” published in Creation Research Society Quarterly issue number 26. Additional findings confirming his predictions were also published in Coe and Prévot’s article entitled, “Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal” published in Earth and Planetary Science Letter issue number 92.
In 1984 Humphreys also predicted in his article appearing in Creation Research Society Quarterly issue 21 entitled, “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields” that due to the hydrologic creation of planets that the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune should be 100,000 times weaker than expected from the deep time model, his predictions were confirmed by the Voyager II mission. Humphrey’s details these findings in his article, “Beyond Neptune: Voyager II supports creation” appearing in Impact issue number 203. [In that same 1984 article Humphreys also predicted the following: Pluto would not have any appreciable magnetic moment at present, Mercury's magnetic field decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it, and in 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value, and older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remnant magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do. All of these predictions were later verified by secular astronomers and are still accepted today.]
.
Humphreys and Baumgardner have made additional accurate predictions detailed in the two secular articles I already referenced for you.
Accurate predictions concerning the death of the “Junk DNA” Hypothesis appear in Woodmorappe’s article, “Potentially decisive evidence against pseudogene ‘shared mistakes’” appearing in the Journal of Creation issue number 18, 2004.
Baumgardner predicted in the initial stages of the RATE research project that measurable levels of C14 should be detectible in organic matter supposed to be far older than the upper limit placed on radiocarbon dating. His predictions were verified during the project and are detailed in the article, “Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model” published in the 5th International Conference on Creationism journal.

Your wording is a bit dishonest, but basically, yeah. Who else would decide what science is? There's a fairly rigorous framework in place designed to weed out inaccuracies, and sure it relies on majority participation, but so does everything else.

Without a clear definition of science it is impossible to know who the scientists are, so that’s not going to work. Secondly, scientific facts are not determined by majority opinion or consensus, that’s a very common lay person’s misconception of science. The history of science has taught us that actual scientific facts are often in direct opposition to what the majority of scientists believe at that period in time (see Steady State Theory in the 1920s).

So, first of all, when the very first line of the article you're quoting states that the author's "primary authority is the infallible word of god," the implication being that they won't change their minds on their central hypothesis, I wouldn't say that these guys are all that interested in being falsified, so much as not being embarrassed by using easily refutable answers in an age of information that can slap them down with a few taps of a smartphone.

So rather than admit you were wrong about Creationists never updating their arguments you want to change the subject to axioms? Scientists are allowed to hold axioms, and all do. Creationists are simply intellectually honest enough to identify theirs, so that’s a moot point.

i] One wonders if they'd be doing the same in a world without the internet.

They used to publish the same article periodically in Creation magazine and TJ prior to the internet, so that answers that question.

And yet, they hang onto their core belief doggedly...

Scientists are allowed to possess axioms, and evidence cannot contradict your axioms. Secular sciences adhere to naturalism and uniformity of natural law axiomatically; they also adhere to the axiom that the material world is knowable- none of these are provable or questionable and yet you still consider them to be “real” scientists. You’re not allowed to hold creationists to a different set of rules.

You seem to have skipped over my central point, that answering questions with "god" gets us no closer to actually finding out how everything got where it was.

Sure it does, it answers the question perfectly. When two anthropologists are examining a pile of rocks stacked upon a high bluff, and one says, “You know, I think a Native American boy created this monument 300 years ago…”
The other one doesn’t snap back, “Stop it! That does not have any explanatory power! I thought you were a real scientist! We have to propose a completely non-intelligent and unguided natural mechanism for how these rocks were stacked upon the top of this bluff!”
Of course you could propose some bizarre natural mechanism involving strong and yet sporadic winds as to explain how those rocks were stacked so neatly on top of the mountain, but you’d be wrong and still no more scientific than the person proposing the creative intelligence. Intelligent agency is a very scientific and useful explanation.

It might be an imperfect standard, but not improper; there's a reason peer review tends to bestow credibility.

Actually the biggest scientific breakthroughs are often not published in peer-reviewed journals, but rather in scientific works published by the author.

Your objections about hoaxes being peer reviewed are kind of nullified by the fact that it was the scientific community that marked them as hoaxes and publicised them as such, too: that's the point of peer review.

No, the hoaxes were not identified by anyone on the peer-review board; it was always someone examining the findings from the outside. If your findings agree with the paradigm accepted by the reviewers or even just the editor of the journal, you’ll get published. It’s a corrupt system. The Piltdown man hoax was not exposed for 40 years. The German anthropologist Reiner Protsch von Zieten published fraudulent and fabricated findings in numerous scientific journals for 30 years. However, since his findings were supporting the accepted paradigm concerning the evolution of modern man nobody rejected any of his work for publication. It was not until upon a whim that Oxford University decided to radio-carbon date a few of his fossils that they found that rather than being tens of thousands of years old, most were only a few thousand years old (one of which was less than 300 years old).

ItSame deal with Einstein and Newton's work: they may not have been initially peer reviewed, but their works stand or fall on their own.

Yes, which is why peer-review is not a necessary criteria for a work to be considered good science.