[PatrickHenry]

A provocative question that Junior recently directed to a creationist: "Biblical prophesies notwithstanding, what biological predictions does creationism make?" The creationist didn't respond, but I do, as follows:

I can think of a few creationist predictions. Because -- according to creationism -- all species were specially created at virtually the same time, and did not gradually evolve from earlier forms:

1. There should be no transitional species.

2. There are most certainly no pre-human (but still humanoid) species.

3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.

4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth. This isn't a direct prediction, but it's inferred by the concept of special creation. There is no reason at all for each to be so similar to the others in their molecular structure. For example, there's no creationist reason why a lion can eat animals from all over the globe.

5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.

I call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.

In fairness to the creationists, although the first three have already been disproved (for example: #1 -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, #2 -- Human Ancestors, more #2 -- Comparison of all skulls, #3 -- Tree of Life Project ), the last two (#4 and #5) can't yet be considered to be totally failed predictions. All we can do is point out that the predicted evidence has not yet been discovered. Given the lack of actual research being conducted by creationists, it is unlikely to be discovered.

[CobaltBlue]

Humans and dinosaurs? How about humans and trilobites?

How about pre-Cambrian vertibrates?

[Dimensio]

The problem with the 'failed' predictions of creationism is that they are easily explained away with "God made it that way for reasons that we do not yet understand." Transitional species only look like transitional species, it's just a coincidence. When you invoke divine intervention, anything can be explained away. That is one of the reasons why creationism is not scientific.

[stanz]

The problem is, at least according to some of the responses I have seen here over time, that creationists do not accept the validity of the fossil record or DNA testing. They argue that speciation, say, as evidenced in humans fossils, is a result of deformation of samples or science's utter failure to classify the samples correctly. As to comparative primate morphology, creationists refuse to accept the structural similarities from primates to proto-hominids-to modern humans and insist that either some fraud is being perpetrated or that the forms are strictly variations within one species. The fact that humans and chimpanzees differ gentically by only one chromosome is probably the most difficult for them to explain away.
The problem lies in the passage of time and in the geologic changes have which have had such great impact on flora and fauna. If you're not willing to accept the age of the earth and the date of emergence of now-extinct species which gave rise to more modern forms (which is what creationists are hobbled by) then, you are relegated to the dust bins of pseudo-science where predictions must fail, or as you said, discoveries never discovered due to lack of research and inquiry.