Pranking Christian call show

[Esquilax]

Sure it has. Their predictions about vestigial organs actually serving purposes, residual Carbon in oil, diamonds, and coal, helium retention rates, magnetic field reversals, the magnetic field strengths of both Neptune and Uranus prior to Voyager, and “junk” DNA being a myth were all accurate just to name a few. Perhaps you should read up a bit on the subject matter.

Could you provide some sources, please?

Recognized by whom? I smell, “Science is whatever scientists do!”

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.

I already did bub. See above; so yes, creationism is testable, check!

I'll happily read through links if you feel like providing them, but I don't feel like weeding through creationist crap to get to the pertinent articles. You've probably got more experience examining this stuff, so show me something interesting.

All you’ve done here is illuminate your ignorance on the subject matter. Here’s several articles filled with many arguments creationists used to view as scientifically valid but no longer believe are valid due to new evidence coming forth (some of the arguments were never viewed as valid by the leading creation groups)….

Oh my...

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.

Hell, Answers in Genesis has a similar article that, first of all, asserts the same unwillingness to change their minds on the core issue, and then outright states that the reason they're warding people away from these arguments it to avoid losing credibility. One wonders if they'd be doing the same in a world without the internet.

So yes, creationism is falsifiable and self-correcting, check!

And yet, they hang onto their core belief doggedly... Doesn't Answers in Genesis also have a statement of faith that any evidence that contradicts the bible is wrong by definition, up there? Why would you ever cite those fuckers as a source of falsifiability?

Again, you’re apparent lack of understanding of the subject matter is embarrassing. Science does allow for the inference of design and intelligent causes, so proposing God as a creative agent is not ruled out a priori. You seem to be confounding agency with mechanism. Secondly, the creation model has made several very accurate predictions. So it does hold very powerful explanatory power! Check!

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.

And by all means, show those accurate creationist predictions. Don't just assert them.

Again, just plain off the mark. Peer-review is not a necessity for something to be considered science, some of the best science ever done was never peer-reviewed (Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” and Einstein’s “Relativity, The Special and General Theory” come to mind, or are those two not “real” scientists either? ) while some of the worst science was peer-reviewed (the Piltdown man hoax, and Woo-suk’s fraudulent research on embryology come to mind). So this is an improper standard. That being said, creationists still surpass it. Dr. Baumgardner’s work entitled, “The enigma of the ubiquity of 14C in organic samples older than 100 ka” was published in the mainstream peer-reviewed journal Transactions of the American Geophysical Union issue number 84. Dr. Humphrey’s work entitled, “Recently measured helium diffusion rate for zircon suggests inconsistency with U-Pb age for Awards Fenton Hill granodiorite” was also published in the same issue. Dr. Meyer’s article, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” was published in the mainstream journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. So…check!

It might be an imperfect standard, but not improper; there's a reason peer review tends to bestow credibility. 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. It doesn't just end when something gets published. Same deal with Einstein and Newton's work: they may not have been initially peer reviewed, but their works stand or fall on their own. Peer review is a constant process, not one that ends upon publication.

On that note, I'll try looking up those works you list tonight, once I'm at home. Should be interesting.