“What data would not fit the creation framework? No matter what you observed, you could always say “God made it that way.” “
It’s not a complete bank check. The main factors are a six-day creation period (not ongoing), the fall (no death prior to sin), and the flood.
The ToE is at least as flexible. How many times do we see data that surprised scientists, but rather than question the theory, they come up with a new just-so story to explain how it must have evolved.
“But what’s the predictive ability of the creation framework?”
Here’s something that comes to mind. http://creation.com/mercurys-magnetic-field-is-young
Tell me about evolution’s.
I confess, I'm a little lost when it comes to the mathematics of magnetic fields and magnetic moments. One criticism I've read of Humphreys' theories is that he calls anything close to his posited decay rate a confirmation, and I notice at your link that his own figure for "Spacecraft measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field strength" show a wide range whose maximum is just barely within his projection. I'm not sure how impressive that really is.
I also read (Wikipedia) that "Whether the magnetic field changed to any significant degree between the Mariner 10 mission and the MESSENGER mission remains an open question. A 1988 J.E.P. Connerney and N.F. Ness review of the Mariner magnetic data noted eight different papers in which were offered no less than fifteen different mathematical models of the magnetic field." So Humphreys may be cherry-picking the measurements that "confirm" his theory and ignoring others.
Tell me about evolution’s.
I already mentioned the flu. Another is that isolated populations in different environments will evolve into distinct species. This has been observed many times--my favorite example are the lizards which, only 36 years after being introduced to a Mediterranean island, evolved whole new structures in their stomachs. If creation is not ongoing, as you say, it seems like it'd be pretty hard to explain where those new structures came from.
The stock creationist/intelligent design response is that the information for those structures was present in the lizards' genes and just got expressed in the new environment--i.e., adaptation not evolution. My question in response is why intelligent design advocates aren't looking for unexpressed information in various animals' genes and making predictions about what could be expressed in the right environment--that seems like it'd be a fruitful avenue of inquiry and, if successful, would lend a lot of weight to the theory. But somehow, none of them seem to be doing that.