Is it just my imagination, or are the "Five Failed Predictions of Creationism" simply too much for the creationoids?
Uhmm, you put the thread in the smokey backroom and only ping fellow evolutionists, what did you expect!
Let's see:
1. There should be no transitional species.
There are not any. What transitional species is there between reptiles and mammals? What evidence is there for it? As often pointed out it is in the greatest changes that there should be the most evidence. For this the greatest change in the supposed evolutionary tree of life there is absolutely no evidence.
2. There are most certainly no pre-human species.
The origin of humans - homo sapiens - has never been determined in any credible way. The closest species to homo sapiens in chronology - Neanderthals - has been proven not to have been a possible ancestor of man.
BTW - the statement is one of the rhetorical nonsenses used by evolutionists. Bacteria are pre-human.
3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.
There is not. There are numerous fossils and numerous gaps in the fossil record. Species appear fully formed in numerous places with absolutely no ancestry. The Cambrian explosion is a complete refutation of evolution and led Gould and other evolutionists to break with Darwinian evolution.
4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth.
There is no such requirement in creationism. In fact, that all life is based on DNA is abundant proof that abiogenesis (life from non-life) is impossible. Thus the materialistic basis of evolutionism is totally discredited since it leaves as the only possible source of life the intervention of a Creator.
5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.
Nonsense. Another total non-prediction of creationism. Evolution proposes constant changes in environment and constant mutations as the source of the transformation of species. That many species have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years without change shows the evolutionist predictions to be false.
Opening page known transitions and 1st page of the Introduction, assumed to be closely related.
"Assumed knowledge" is not "known facts"...
I stopped there. There's no point in following their logic; they're without hope.