Can the creation model make scientific predictions?

In his recent debate with Ken Ham, Bill Nye seemed stuck on the supposed failure of the creation model to make scientific predictions. If the Bible is true then we should expect to find:

-Billions of animals rapidly buried in wet sediment

-Animal ancestry traceable back to a single taxonomic family/kind and no further

-Folded rock layers

-Smooth transitions between geologic layers without evidence of millions of years of erosion

-Soft tissue in fossil bone which could not have survived hundreds of thousands of years (let alone millions)

-Marine fossils on the highest mountain ranges

-Sudden appearance of fully functional species in the fossil record with no evidence of clear transitional forms (there should be millions more failures than successes)

-Evidence of geologic catastrophism which could not have been formed by gradual processes (large canyons, Badlands, transcontinental sedimentary layers, Ayers Rock, etc.)

-Polystrate fossils such as trees and whale skeletons which penetrate through several geologic layers supposedly separated by millions of years

-Specialized structures in animals which could not have come about by random mutation over long periods of time (e.g. bird lungs, male/female reproduction, bombardier beetle, bacterial flagellum, human placenta, woodpecker skulls, etc.)

-Symbiotic relationships which must have existed simultaneously (bees/orchids, yucca plant/moth, etc.)

-Verification of practices given by divine revelation which were in sharp contrast to scientific  “wisdom” of the time (circumcision/prothrombin, hygiene laws protecting Jews during Black Plague, geocentrism, necessity of egg and sperm for human reproduction)

This is exactly what we DO find in nature through observational science. Incidentally, we do NOT find anything which clearly supports the evolutionary model. The evidence speaks for itself and it shouts “Creation!” It is only by reinterpreting the evidence according to evolutionary bias that it in any way appears to prop up Darwinism. And these reinterpretations are riddled with weasel words such as “appears to, may, perhaps, seems to, could suggest, might, possibly, etc.” Actual physical science which is measurable, repeatable, and objective always supports the biblical model. And let’s never forget that science can only make predictions based upon the unchanging laws of nature which are only possible in a controlled, designed, stable universe. The chaos which allegedly birthed the Big Bang might revert to chaos again without warning. This is what Ken Ham meant when he said evolutionary scientists borrow from the creation model to do their science, just as atheists borrow from biblical absolutes of right and wrong when they accuse Christians of being hateful, judgmental, wrong, etc.