I don't believe in creationism but I actually liked Ken Ham's intro and 30 min segment. I found most of what he said not to be too terribly unreasonable.
As for Bill I think he kinda jumped the gun with a quick stab at Noahs Ark right from the getgo. I also was not impressed when he started off his 30 min segment. After he got into it and was speaking for awhile I felt that his arguing was at the level that it should have been to start with. Also I was slightly disappointed that he saved a main point of his argument (atleast imo a main point) for much later "Why should I take the word of a 3000 year old text (that was translated/interpreted into english like one would play the game of telephone) which contradicts what I can directly observe right now", instead he started off mainly focusing on the flood and debunking it, which he should have rolled into from the main point imo.
As a general overview of the debate I did not like Bill Nye often trying to "appeal to the person" rather than actually debating why science is better. I thought Ken ham did a very good job at not doing this and I would commend him for this. Also in the question section Bill Nye Would slow down right at the end of his time and go over almost every question, I think this was bad ettiquette and thus reflected badly on him. Again Ken Ham did not do this .
However, towards the end I could feel Bill pulling through. The difference in their veiws came right down to the nitty gritty and many of the "logical problems" of creationism where showing through. That being the answer to every question was "because the good book says so". I think Ken Ham sensed this and was slightly uneasy (even though I am pretty sure he genuinly believes in his view). I would have to say that science won the day, but I also don't think it wasn't really that bad for creationism (again just my opinion).
I don't think at all that this was an "End all" debate for creationism. Personally I wish Bill would have talked more about why religion even exists, and that we shouldn't believe anything more than what we can observe (I think there could be a lengthy lecture, from a philisophical/psychological/historical view, on these topics that should lay religion to rest for good).
Also noteworthy is the fact that I have watched some creationism sermons on Youtube before this and I thought they put some good critiques to science (maybe not all of them are viable, but it was logical that atleast some of them could be). Many of the critiques are things that may be questionable science in high school textbooks. They say this is "the man" trying to enforce a science "religion" on students, but I think maybe its questionable who high schools are buying their books from (and how old those textbooks are). Also creationists highlight everytime someone is trying to declare something as science but really it has no grounds at all and is extremely fallacious. I have to admit that often people do sucky work or are corrupt as fuck, and bad teachings slip through the cracks. On the whole, though, I would still have to go with science.
