Pranking Christian call show

[Bad Writer]

P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
P2. Creationism is a methodology that explains the natural Universe.
C. Therefore, creationism is science.

Valid and sound!

I'm not the one that needs convincing (though this in no way denotes that I'm convinced). Propose this to the scientific community, and prepare to get that Nobel prize.

Scientists have numerous...presuppositions; they are not established by science itself.

Then name one that touts these presuppositions as absolute fact. Only creationists do this, which is a good indicator as to why the experts are hesitant to even consider it science.

Then scientifically demonstrate that…

[1] Reality exists
[2] Reality is knowable
[3] Your senses accurately perceive reality
[4] Your memory is generally reliable
[5] Inductive reasoning works
[6] There is regularity in Nature
[7] There has always been regularity in Nature
[8] There will continue to be regularity in Nature
[9] Matter does not exit and re-enter existence
[10] Contradictions do not exist
[11] Causality exists
[12] The scientist’s ability to reason is trustworthy
[13] Other minds perceive reality the same as yours does.

I'm not even going to pretend here; I'm not a scientist. What I do know is that since science doesn't proclaim anything as absolute fact (only theories made up of accepted ideas and observations) that the farthest any of these proofs will go is as a working theory.

Of course, you have some valid concerns here, and as a simple non-scientist I'll entertain you for a moment and talk to these points that I have numbered for ease of reference.

1. If there was no reality, then I don't think we would be interacting in any way, shape, or form. The only other option from reality would best be described, as far as I know, as non-reality, or non-existence. For things to exist, I think there needs to be a reality.
2. Because of our intersection interactions, reality is knowable because of corroborating evidence to support its existence. I know there's at least this reality. Whether or not there are others is unproven for the time being, and saying that there are other realities is immature and possibly inaccurate.
3. Saying that our senses accurately depict reality is not my realm of expertise. I will say that even if our own senses are in some way malfunctioning, such as a color-blind person's eyes not being able to detect certain aspects of the spectrum, that humans have since developed instruments that aid in giving us extra information about our environment or reality. Therefore, even a color-blind person can be convinced of the existence of other colors due to demonstrating the readings of a spectrometer or similar device.
4. I'm not certain that anyone's memories are ever completely reliable. Perhaps someone with an eidetic memory would be the closest we can get to observing a person with a very reliable memory, though even that probably isn't as perfect as preserving information by carving it into stone or putting it into digital format.
5. Both Deductive and Inductive (bottom-up vs. top-down) reasoning have their merits. I won't lie that I'm not an expert in either, but I found an article that might be helpful, as it explains both and gives some good examples.
Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning
6. Regularity is a pretty broad term to be used in association with Nature. I would say that certain things are regular, and there is much that is not, but it all depends on the context of the term; for instance, certain laws in nature stay the same: the orbit of the earth around the sun, the laws of gravity, and other such known phenomena. However, the irregularity of nature would most likely be in regards to the process of evolution and other changing aspects of the known universe. One could also argue that the fact that some things are unknown is a very regular thing; or rather one should expect the unexpected. If this answer doesn't sit well with you, then I urge you to clarify what you mean by "regular".
7. As I still don't know exactly what you mean by "regularity", I'm going to answer this the best I can. The fact is, we don't know the past. Nor can we predict the future. What we see is what we makes observations on. We expect that certain things about nature have been constant throughout millenia, and we expect the same for times to come. If there was ever something acting upon the universe in an irregular way in the past, we can probably never know, but we will find out in the future if this ever holds to be true.
8. I think I answered this one in #7.
9. Matter exiting and entering into existence can only be discussed in terms of what we think existence to be. If matter enters our reality when it wasn't there beforehand, this does not mean that it started to exist; rather it was most likely always there, but not in any way we could observe. Lawrence Krauss talks about this at length in his lecture "A Universe from Nothing", and he's much more articulate about it than I am.
10. Contradictions do exist in that someone can contradict his or herself in words, but when talking in terms of observable facts, I think they do not. Perhaps you can prove how they do exist?
11. Causality, or the principle that everything has a cause, is something I'm wont to discuss because I don't think there's enough evidence to prove that this is correct in every case. I can give you the good ol' Atheist rhetoric on this one by saying "I don't know". That's not to say that I don't care, but if we're going to head into Kalam Cosmological theory, then I'll simply say that if we do accept causality, what brings you to the conclusion that the cause (for the beginning of the Universe) needs to be a god?
12. A scientist's ability to reason can either be trustworthy or not, and for that we don't accept their work on their word alone. I'm pretty certain that's why there's peer review.
13. On this one, I don't know. I'll refer you back to my answer on #3, as it explains how we use extra-sensory equipment to come up with intersecting observations on reality.