Sure Creationist predicted that there would be evidence contradicting radiometric ages. Radioisotope halos and diamond crystal studies are providing that evidence.
Creationist reasoned that the magnetic flips must not have taken thousands of years each in accordance with evolutionary beliefs, but must have occurred relatively quickly. A rock was found that recorded a flip occuring within a matter of weeks as the rock cooled.
By specific, I mean as in pertaining to the discovery of a specific fossil, a specific gene, a specific type of animal or plant, a specific distribution of a particular biological population, etc.? "
Creationists predicted that none of the human organs would turn out to be vestigal as evolutionists claimed and turns out that none are.
Creationists predicted that the "non-coding (junk) DNA" would turn out to have function, and we are continuing to discover new functions in that code.
Creationists predicted that no gay genes would be found, and none have been.
Creation predicts that we wouldn't find missing links between man and ape, and we haven't. Along 6 different categories of measurement, all primate fossils are either clearly ape or clearly man with the exception of brain size which overlaps.
Specific genes? Well, I've already pointed out in this tread that it was the Creationist, George Mendel, who discovered Genetics. So it seems Creationists do have a history of predicting genes as we started the process.
What creationists don't do well, is predict fossils, but then neither does evolution. We know that God made a greater diversity, if only because we were already aware of extinct species long before evolution and Darwin. But we don't predict, what kind of diversity, we will find.
Evolution on the other hand, makes lots of predictions about what kind of fossils will be found, but most of those predictions are still waiting. And then again, there's that report this week of the baleen whale with teeth, that evolution didn't expect. So Creation may not be a great model for predicting fossils, but really, neither is Evolution.
Creationist reasoned that the magnetic flips must not have taken thousands of years each in accordance with evolutionary beliefs, but must have occurred relatively quickly. A rock was found that recorded a flip occuring within a matter of weeks as the rock cooled.
Creationists predicted that none of the human organs would turn out to be vestigal as evolutionists claimed and turns out that none are.
Creationists predicted that the "non-coding (junk) DNA" would turn out to have function, and we are continuing to discover new functions in that code.
Creationists predicted that no gay genes would be found, and none have been.
Creation predicts that we wouldn't find missing links between man and ape, and we haven't. Along 6 different categories of measurement, all primate fossils are either clearly ape or clearly man with the exception of brain size which overlaps.
These are all examples of negatives. None are specific. None point to the discovery of a specific prediction. Come on now, if ID and creationism are good science, they should be able to point to a specific prediction - as in when, where, how a new fossil, new species, new gene should be found. All these 'predictions' are very vague, (and a couple are outright falsehoods, but I won't get into that here). As for your magnetic flip example, anyone who has taken Physics 101 knows a localized magnetic domain can flip. What we don't find are global magnetic domains flipping rapidly.
Let's make this easier. How about just one specific prediction - not one telling what won't be found or what won't be good enough, but one that tells us where to look for one particular phenomenon.
Here's another successful evolutionary prediction that does just that:
"Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm. The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones."