Creationism has made verified predictions.

Not any prediction validates a theory Ancient Greeks thought Apollo guided a fiery chariot drawn across the sky by wild horses. The theory predicts that the sun will rise daily. Nearly all theories make at least one successful prediction that supporters can point to. That's why scientists insist validation requires “the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis.” Pro's claimed Creationist predictions are of the "one off" type. We cannot test the theory by continuing to apply the theory and testing if it is obeyed. Eyewitness evidence is unreliable Eyewitness evidence can be no better than being testimony of what a witness thinks he sees, and it cannot be verified independent of the witness. Forensic evidence is not limited by human senses or memory, or the retelling of a tale. A camera can capture slight-of-hand or thin wires that the unaided eye cannot perceive, and events out of view of the observer. Science has electron microscopes, chemical tests, spectrography, radiation measurements and much else beyond the human senses. In any case, there are no witnesses to earth's creation since by all accounts there were no humans in existence at the time. The earth is old, so Young Earth Creationism is false. We know the earth is much older than 10,000 because data from independent methods of dating the earth show it not only to old, but that events dated by different methods are in very good agreement. a. Tree rings run thick and thin depending upon the particular conditions of a growing season. By matching up the growth patterns of long-dead trees, a history of growth (and hence climate) going back at least 13,000 years is established. b. The growth rings in coral extend back continuously for 30,000 years. Coral is composed of carbonates, so the history confirms carbon dating to be accurate to better than 2%. c. Varves are sediment layers in lakes or estuaries. The sediments preserve pollen grains in the seasonal patterns of runoff. The pollen grains tell the type of flora present, which in turn implies climate. There are 26 examples of varves around the world going back over 25,000 years. d, Ice cores show seasons for over 100,000 years. The properties of the air trapped in the ice is shown to vary over time. e. Radiometric dating provides dating over different time scales. Carbon dating is used for certain materials back to about 45,000 years. However, there are about 15 other radio isotopes used for dating. Some, like argon-argon dating, do not require assumptions about the amount of the original isotope. Dating is established for millions to billions of years using various isotopes. The text Quaternary Dating Methods by M. Walker carefully documents these methods, with many references to the scientific literature. [1. http://books.google.com...] There are dozens of other dating methods. It takes a couple hundred million years to form beach sand. The silicon crystals are formed in granite when liquid rock from volcanoes cools. The matrix holding the crystals is gradually etched away by weakly acidic rain to liberate the sand. [2. http://www.enotes.com... ] We have sand, so we know the earth is hundreds of millions of years old. Predictions 1.1-1.5, 2, 3 regarding planetary magnetic fields Pro presents no evidence of what the creationist theory is or why it predicted what is claimed. He presents no evidence that conventional science predicted anything differently, he only cites unsupported claim of creationists that conventional theory was wrong. I succeeded in tracking down some of the creationist theory. The idea is that God first created the earth out of water and then magically converted the water to rock and iron. For inexplicable reasons, God chose to align the dipoles of the water molecules and when transforming the water into rock and iron, decided to keep some of the the magnetic field. Predicting the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune amounts to guessing the dipole coefficient. there is no aim that the dipole coefficient is revealed in the Bible, it's a pure guess. The guess was midway between the coefficients of earth and Saturn, which turned out to be a pretty good guess. The Creationist theory of planetary magnetic fields was thoroughly examined and refuted by Thompson in 2003. [3. http://www.talkorigins.org... The Creationist theory requires that their be no convection within planets. The standard "dynamo" theory requires moving material to create the field. We know that there is convection within earth because continental drift has been verified, and the drift requires internal convection. Also, creationist theory predicts a simple static dipole field, and the actual field patterns are complex and varying. The calculations of dynamo theory involve turbulence, and are still largely beyond the capacity of present computers. Hence, here were no firm predictions from conventional theory in 1984 for Creationists to have beaten; no doubt there was some theory by someone who wasn't a creationist, but nothing firm. In 2009, the dynamo theory of planetary magnetic fields was given strong support by the discovery that planetary field strength is proportional to the amount of energy radiated by the body. [4. http://www.smh.com.au... ] The theory predicts not only the solar system, but the magnetic fields of distant stars and planets. Two cases have been discovered that indicated very rapid change of field direction. there is still no agreement as to whether the data is valid. [5.http://tinyurl.com...] Scientists are unconvinced of the validity of the data, and if it is true, the cause. For example, it's possible the underlying earth changed direction due to an earthquake-induced landslide. We also don't know if change that rapid conflicts with turbulence-theory, as the calculations have not been done. The earth's magnetic field has reversed many times in the past billion years. The last reversal was 770,000 years ago. Since then, the strength of the field has varied considerably; see the graph. [6. http://tinyurl.com... Prediction 4: Monotheism before Polytheism Whatever is claimed to be first, their is a 50-50 chance of being correct, and we have no archaeological records from primitive tribal societies. If claim it true, it's a matter for psychologists unrelated to earth science. Prediction 5: Biblical Flood All the water on earth could only raise sea level by 200 feet. Sediment layers show pollen grains that mark the seasons, so there is no possibility that they we formed in one great flood. The data from tree rings, coral growth, and ice cores show no evidence of a flood. [1] Nearly every locality has floods, with 500 year and 1000 year extremes. These become enshrined in myth. Prediction 6 - 7 Scientists conspire to defeat Creationism There is no trend whatsoever in favor of Creationism. It stays at the 0.14% level of acceptance by scientists. Scientists achieve success by providing solid evidence that denies a theory (per Einstein, et al) not by conforming to theories. Creationists have no evidence of conspiring. If radiometric dating methods were really inaccurate, Creationists could prove it by submitting samples to different labs in a double-blind experiment. They never do that. Scientists do less checking of that sort, and it verifies the results. Creationists sometime point to odd cases of the methods being unreliable, but that is akin to dismissing wrist watches and clocks on the grounds that they occasionally fail. We know the methods are reliable because they are verified by cross-checking. We have lots of different “clocks” and they agree. Creationism predictions are not scientific. The resolution is negated.