Thoughts on Ham-Nye Debate 3

Seems what Nye meant about turbulence was more about why we don't see a fish trying to escape the Flood by leaping up into the layer above. I'd guess that's because they were all dead by tghe time the layers were in place, encased in thick sedimentas as they were. Nothing was doing much leaping at that point. Some creatures that were still alive during the deposition of the sediments left their footprints in the wet sediments, and according to someone I heard recently, Snelling or Wise I suppose, their bodies were found after their footprints in the layer just above.

Is Nye being purposely obtuse when he keeps failing to understand Ham's point about historical versus observational science? It's so obvious. If you can't observe it all you have is imaginative speculations. We can observe variation within Kinds, but we can't observe evolution from species to species, that is merely assumed. So whedn Nye keeps carrying on about the importance of teaching science and conflating these obvious differences he's either being disingenuous or he's really that obtus4e.

I still think my own two arguments smash evolution to smithereens so that all the unanswered questions are for a future science without evolution. Evolution is dead if you recognize that the strata simply cannot be time periods but had to have been laid down in rapid succession, and certainly it's dead if you recognize that natural selection, or every kind of selection which inclucdes every kind of geotgraphic and other modes of ireproductive isolation, actually depletes the genetic potentials in any new population, because if evolution needs anything to be true it's an increase rather than a decrease in genetic potentials. Mutations have to be selectedd to and it's selection that utterly totally absolutely defeats evolution.