It is the evolutionists who are short on predictions.
When will be the next 'jump' be in the species to create a newer and greater species?
Now, why should Creationists predict future events for something that happened thousands of years ago?
Creationists and Evolutionists work with the same scientific data and come to the same conclusion on how things works now (operational science).
The disagreement is over the beginnings, not the present.
We are not looking for any more global floods (Gen.9).
If that happens, then the Creationists were wrong.
Either, 'In the Beginning God'
Or
In the Beginning Nothing'
Take your pick on what sounds more ratonal.
Yes.
"It is the evolutionists who are short on predictions.
"When will be the next 'jump' be in the species to create a newer and greater species?
If you reread my post you will see that I wasn't suggesting predictions on what will happen in the future. Both Evolution and Creation should be able to make the same type of prediction (or postdiction if you prefer).
There are no 'jumps' such as you imply, even Punctuated Equilibrium takes 100s of 1000s of years for one species to change into another 'related' species.
Predictions such as you requested are impossible, not because evolution cannot make predictions but because the environmental conditions necessary for a given change describe a complex system bordering on the chaotic and because we we need to know not only the predicted environmental changes but 'all' available genetic variance within every population. This is simply not possible.
Predictions in Evolution are about what type of physical evidence we should find given certain conditions.
"Now, why should Creationists predict future events for something that happened thousands of years ago?
Because that is how science is done. However those 'future' events are nothing more than the evidence we should find about an occurrence in the past.
Every historical physical event leaves physical traces. This is why forensics is as successful as it is. With historical data from the distant past much of the evidence has been erased by 'entropy' but we have developed means of determining logic sequences based on what evidence is left and observation of current events. Evolution can, and has, predicted that genomic comparisons between related organisms will be more similar than comparisons done of more distantly related organisms. The prediction has been born out. Evolution can and has predicted the group of layers where the transition from fish to reptile should be found. The fossil Tiktaalik was where they expected.
Similarly, Creationists should be able to predict what should be found in a specific group of layers. All of the questions I mentioned in my previous post are those kind of predictions Creationists should be able to make. They are predictions based on known physical processes and the logical consequences of the Creationists hypothesis of a global flood. A global flood would leave very specific physical evidences. Creationists should be able to predict what should be found.
When considering two hypotheses which purport to explain the same observation then the predictions of what should be found need to be mutually exclusive between the two hypotheses. In other words, if one hypothesis is true the result found should be different than that of the other hypothesis should it be true.
However, and I thought I made this clear in my other post, if either hypothesis requires a known, well validated law or convention to be contradicted, it has disqualified itself unless it can be shown that the law does not apply in that specific instance. The greater the number of laws contradicted the greater the difficulty in showing a valid divergence from those laws.
So far, 'Creation' science has to postulate so many 'special' instances of current laws as to be rightly ridiculed.
Both Evolution and the Creationist attempt to prove the Bible, are historical pursuits where the predictions are not based on what will happen in the future but what evidence should be found if the hypothesis is true.
"Creationists and Evolutionists work with the same scientific data and come to the same conclusion on how things works now (operational science).
"The disagreement is over the beginnings, not the present.
Yet had the physical universe operated differently in the past there would be indications of those differences evident today.
"We are not looking for any more global floods (Gen.9).
"If that happens, then the Creationists were wrong.
"Either, 'In the Beginning God'
"Or
"In the Beginning Nothing'
"Take your pick on what sounds more ratonal.
Who created God?
If he wasn't created then what conditions preclude that need?