Creationism has made verified predictions.

If Creationist predictions are repeatable science, then Pro should be able to cite the magnetic field predictions the theory makes for the sun, for distant stars and for the planets around distant stars. Did Creationist theory predict or explain that Venus and Mars have no magnetic field? If so, where were the predictions made? Where is the theory published so that anyone can apply it to new cases?Scientific theories explain the age of earth according to natural processes. The formation of sand, for example, is consistent with what we know about geology and chemistry. Creationism attributes things to magic. Predictions cannot be verified, so they are not scientific predictions. There are at least twenty-four other ways to determine that the earth is old besides what we have discussed, ranging from amino acid racemization, through thermoluminescence dating, and weathering rind formation. [7. http://tinyurl.com...] Creationist objections are systematically answered at [8. http://tinyurl.com...] Adopting young earth creationist theory requires abandoning virtually all of physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy.For God to testify, He must appear, prove his identity, and testify. I'd be impressed, but that hasn't happened. Many religions have sacred texts believers think valid. There is no consensus on interpreting what they say, particularly about claims contradicting science. Even Christians who believe in the Bible have no consensus. The Catholic Church, as keen on the Bible as anyone, agrees the theory of Evolution is correct. [9. http://tinyurl.com...] Vanishingly few scientists having religious faith believe in the young earth theory.The Earth is Olda. Occasionally two tree rings are formed in one growing season. These are easily recognized and have never posed a problem for scientists. Missing tree rings are due to cracks in the wood causing pieces to be missing. That's a problem, but any error makes the dates too young. The problem is overcome by matching ring pattern from multiple trees to build up a complete record."We get horror stories from creationists about how easy it is for a tree to produce two or more rings in one year. They have neglected to inform their readers that such problems are minimal for some species of trees. Dr. Andrew E. Douglass, who pioneered the field of dendrochronology, found that ponderosa pine and douglass fir are especially excellent for dating purposes. In such species spotting a double ring was "...easy to do by eye after a very little training...". In the case of the bristlecone pine, the problem of double rings is hardly any problem at all!" [10. http://tinyurl.com...]The dates found from tree rings are confirmed to within about 2% by carbon dating. Pro must explain why, if both methods are unreliable, they are in agreement. A conspiracy theory doesn't work because anyone can obtain carbon dates in a double blind experiment, and that rules out collusion.b. Coral growth dating is also confirmed to within about 2% by carbon dating over a 30,000 year range of dates. [1] Pro offers no explanation of the confirmation.c. Varves are sediments that accumulate in lakes and estuaries with seasonal rainfalls. Varves are important for reconstructing climate because the types of pollen grains embedded reveal what types of plants were growing in the region up to 30,000 years ago. In estuaries, embedded fish scales reveal the ocean temperatures through the prevalent species of fish. Continuous sediment histories going back 30,000 years have been discovered in about 25 locations around the world, including lakes in China, estuaries in the State of Washington, and lakes in Switzerland.. This allows worldwide climate changes to be studied. It's not possible for a Great Flood to sort pollen grains by season or year. The dates also agree with carbon dating.The Green River case Pro cites has been well-studied. [11. http://tinyurl.com...] The Green River formation was mistakenly though to be annual layers. However, the layers were formed by volcanic ash falling into a lake much less often than annually.d. Pro references a creationist argument purporting to refute ice core dating. Arguments cannot be made by references outside the debate. A response to the Creationist argument is given by [12. http://tinyurl.com...]e. For carbon dating, the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, where C!4 is continuously created in the ozone layer, is absorbed by growing organisms. The C!4 is then not refreshed by new C14 from the ozone layer and decays. For argon-argon dating, the argon comes from the decay of potassium. Since argon is a gas, it escapes whenever the rock is molten. The ratio of the two isotopes gives the time since the rock was molten. Using any radiometric dating method requires some care in selecting the samples to ensure the assumption of isolation from the environment is correct. To check the validity, scientists take multiple samples and date them to ensure they are in agreement. There is further confirmation by cross-checking using different dating methods. [1]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.Predictions regarding magnetic fieldsThe reference Pro provided was not to the theory itself, but rather to a Creationist web page proclaiming that the theory made good predictions. If the theory is scientific, we should be capable of applying it to explain why Venus and Mars have no magnetic fields, what the magnetic field of the sun is, and what w should see for distant stars and planets. A Creationist page that does no more than claim it is success does not allow that. It's akin to a fortune teller claiming to have made successful predictions and thereby validating a universal ability to tell fortunes.What I did find is that the theory claims that the world was created by God first making the world of water, then --for some unknown reason-- aligning the dipoles of the water molecules, and finally transforming the water into iron and rock. This predicts that there is no convection in the earth, which we know is false due to continental drift. the creationist theory failed to predict the actual history of magnetic field variation on earth. Therefore the theory was false and the prediction just a guess.I flatly deny the claim on the creationist page that "evolutionary theory" was off by a factor of 100,000. I cannot find any evidence of an "evolutionary theory" existing at the time. I'm sure somebody had some theory, but nothing was widely accepted. It's not surprising that science lacked an explanation. Today we have two million scientists around the world, most working on unsolved problems.A scientific theory has been formulated recent that predicts magnetic fields. The more energy emitted, the more convection, and hence the greater the field. I apologize for giving the wrong link in R2, it is [4. http://cordis.europa.eu...]MonotheismHow exactly, do archaeologists determine what happened before the advent of civilizations that recorded history? It's impossible to prove one way or the other what happened in tribal societies. If true, it is a prediction that cannot be tested, and it always had a 50-50 chance of success. Suppose a creationist correctly predicts the coin flip at the start of the next Superbowl. Would that prove creationism? No, it's an isolated prediction.FloodThe claim that the earth might have been nearly flat within the past 10,000 years is preposterous, and the Pro gave no citation that for the claim that there is a consensus of scientists believing it. Tree rings, coral growth, varves, and ice re show no evidence of a flood.Scientific rejectionWhat non-trivial elements of creationism have been incorporated into mainstream science? Give references to the scientific literature.