Creationism has made verified predictions.

"Did Creationist theory predict or explain that Venus and Mars have no magnetic field? " Creationists made no such predictions that I know of. "Where is the theory published so that anyone can apply it to new cases? " Already cited the planetary magnetics. Con uses the logical fallacy of elephant hurling. He list seemingly impressive amounts of data to support his case, does not substantiate them, and argues from this that his case is true. a. Tree-ring data. Con makes the emotional argument of "scare tactics. " By direct tree-ring counting methods, dates can never go beyond 5000 years. Con ignores the assumptions that I exposed in his thinking. Con wants Pro to explain why dates are in agreement. Simple answer. The assumptions force the dates to agree. The dates do not agree if the assumptions are not made from the same evolutionary world-view. Same explanation for b. In fact, I made the point of explaining the assumptions and proving them false, but Con simply ignores them, using the fallacy of "LaLaLaLa. " c. Con ignores the contradictory evidence presented. I will not reply until he does. We were not discussing the volcanic ash layers, but the pollen layers. Thus Con has strawman-ed my arguments. d. Con points a finger at me for doing the same as him. e. Con once again ignores the expose of his assumptions, giving technical arguments when none is needed. Con states, "If creationists think the measurements are bogus, they could achieve instant validation by running double-blind tests that expose the inconsistencies. They never do that. " The RATE studies did so. The radioactive dating of St. Helens (Which I cited) did that. All objections to such have been responded to by creationists, but are still widely circulated. Con states that I did not reference the theory. I did, it belongs to the first link, hence his arguments fall flat, along with the accompanying allegations. Humphreys explained the prediction that Con flatly denies. The current magnetic field convection model fits the data, Humphrey"s model PREDICTED the data. Con"s contention that "somebody had a theory that was not widely accepted" may be true, but it certainly was widely known. This, Con cannot deny. Monotheism: Con"s main argument is that tribal societies may not have had monotheistic religions. Well, if at the start of their records, they recorded monotheism, then it certainly is more than a 50-50 chance of them being monotheistic before then. This follows from simple logic. One cannot suggest that tribes suddenly became monotheistic just before recording. It is also an argument to silence as well as ignorance. The very things that Con has accused creationists of. Flood: . http://www.extremescience.com... It basically is plate techtonics . http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... Scientific rejection: Con wants me to cite non-trivial elements of creationism that have been incorporated into mainstream science. Not my contention, therefore I will not respond. (Vegetation mats are trivial) Conclusion: Conduct: Pro. Con makes allegations and elephant hurls. Grammar: Pro. Con makes basic errors in spelling and grammar. Arguments: Pro. Con makes use of logical fallacies and fail to defend his assumptions. Sources: Con. Con"s sources are more balanced and neutral.