Creationism has made verified predictions.

Scientific predictionsKeep in mind that the debate is not literally about whether any predictions from creationists have been verified. Predictions made by fortune tellers and Ouija boards have been verified. Professional psychics make a published list of about 100 bold predictions, then a year later publicize the three hits they made. We made clear for this debate that we are talking about scientific predictions in which predictions flow consistently from a theory. So if a creationist theory is able to predict the magnetic fields of celestial objects, it must do so consistently and reliably, not just hit once with a lucky guess and then fail.Science is about concordance, which means that data must be cross-checked and verified by independent methods. The reason I originally introduced five methods for determining the age of the earth is that the methods, based upon different physical laws, agree. My point in referencing the long list of alternative methods for proving the earth old is simply to reinforce the point that cross-checking and verification are the hallmark of science. Creationism is not just arguing that somebody might have counted tree rings wrong, they are arguing that all the methods of science are wrong, and are wrong in exactly the same way so that the diverse methods agree. Radioactive decay must be speeding up by different amounts in different isotopes so as to agree with tree rings, coral growth, and dozens of other independent methods. Mistakes in initial assumptions must somehow always turn out to produce consistent results. We can find many examples of wall clocks that don't give the accurate time and of rulers misread to given the wrong length. We do not abandon the devices as a consequence. We instead recognized the value of cross-checking. The earth is olda. Tree-ring data. The method of using overlapping tree rings to get dates well before any living tree is supported by my references [1] and [10]. Creationists have the notion that double rings are a flaw in the method, but [10] showed they do not pose a problem.b. Coral growth ring are corroborated to within about 2% by carbon dating. Pro never got beyond saying there was something wrong about the "starting assumptions." The starting assumption for coral is that it begins growing. The assumption for carbon dating is that once the coral animal makes solid carbonate, the carbon is no longer exchanged with the atmosphere. Pro addressed neither.c. If we had no evidence other than varves, it would suffice to conclusively prove young earth theory wrong. The varves are laid down continuously and examples are found around the world. Embedded pollen grains mark the seasons, and makes a Great Flood explanation impossible.d. Ice cores establish that the earth is old. Pro pointed to an argument made by a reference outside the debate, a tactic not permuted by debate rules. The argument must be made directly within the character limits. covering the possibility that some reader inks referenced arguments are acceptable, I linked the refutation. I agree with Pro that referenced argument should stand, so my original argument stand.e. I explained why the assumptions behind radiometric data are sound. Pro did not cite any science that claims carbon is exchanged with the atmosphere by non-living objects. Pro did not cite any science that claims molten rock holds inert gases in place. Magnetic Field Predictions The creationist prediction of the magnetic fields of Saturn and Uranus were in fact guesses, not predictions. A scientific theory can be applied universally. Pro admits (or does not contest) that the creationist theory cannot be applied to explain why Venus and Mars have no magnetic fields, to explain the dynamic magnetic field of the sun, nor to predict the fields of distant stars and surrounding planets. The guesses for Saturn and Uranus were claimed to be much more accurate than “evolutionary theory,” but when I challenged Pro to cite the “evolutionary theory” he could not do so. It think there was no accepted quantitative theory at the time, so creationists took some random thing to pump up their claims. The creationist theory is that the earth was created by magically transforming water into rock and iron, so that there are no internal dynamics to generate a field. The creationist theory is false because it cannot explain the non-uniformity observed and the dynamics of the solar magnetic field. Creationist theory is contradicted by the history of changes in the earth's magnetic field. In addition, modern calculations and observations have established the universal predictive power of a theory based upon internal convection. Monotheism The prediction that monotheism would precede polytheism cannot be tested because to test it we would have to originate civilizations on different worlds and take statistics on what the first civilization having a religion did. We can't do that. The prediction is only about the first religion (Vedic in the case of earth), not about independently occurring religions. Pro grants that the nature of religion before recorded history cannot be verified, but that if the first record is of monotheism what preceded was probably also monotheism. The problem is that the prediction is about what is first. A tribe might have developed a polytheistic religion earlier, but having no record we would not know they were earlier. In any case, if the claim is true it is a consequence of psychology, not necessarily creationism. Flood Pro claimed that a Great flood was caused less than 10,000 years ago as a consequence of the mountains suddenly being flatter and and oceans suddenly being shallower, then reverting to the present extremes in which the water is contained in the deep oceans. He said that there was a consensus of scientists that the earth was once flatter, and I challenged him to prove a consensus that the earth was much flatter within the past 10,000 years. Pro cited an article giving the present growth of the Himalayas as being about two inches per years. In 10,000 years, that would amount to 1667 feet, well short of Everest's 27,000 feet. Of course, the up and down cycle would have had to occur in 40 days to match the flood theory. If that had happened, the story would be about tsunami, not flood. Pro's article contradicts the whole story, saying “You may be thinking, "That would have been kinda cool to be here on earth 40 million years ago to be able to watch the Himalayas forming". You would have been really bored, though. The movement that took many millions of years to form the mountain range is still taking place today, and I doubt you would stake out a camp at the foot of the mountains just to watch them grow. Scientific Rejection Pro idea is that some Creationist ideas have been accepted by science, like the notion that animals can float for long distances on vegetation mats. The reason that's trivial is because it's not a predictive theory, it's a random observation. For example, if observations confirmed that all celestial bodies had simple slowly decaying dipole magnetic fields with the same time constant, that would be acceptance of part of the theory. Nothing like that has happened. Science has uniformly rejected young earth creationism. Sources My opponent makes the interesting claim that he has only cited unbiased sources, having almost entirely referenced religious creationist sites. I disagree. There are many controversial issues in science. When scientists argue over global warming, there is plenty of published scientific literature available to fuel both sides of the argument. That's not the case for Pro's young earth creationist theory, in which the claims flow from religious motivation. Thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate this subject. I hope readers will find it of interest. The resolution is negated. Creationism has made no valid predictions from scientific application of the theory.