Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
I didn't get to watch it and I was on the fence until you said this. If I'm guessing correctly I'm pretty sure Bill just stated obvious scientific facts which Ham could not refute but touted faith or some other illogical circular arguments.
IMO Ham did alright, but he kept relating everything back to the bible. His main point was that there's no way to objectively know the past, and thus we need to rely on the bible for the truth. While Nye was just focusing on showing how we know what happened in the past using methods that we use today. That's basically it.