I came away from the whole thing with one big question though, “What was Bill Nye writing while Ken was talking?”
I just liked that it was the American arguing for evolution, for once.
It’s the twenty-first frickin’ century, people. Why the hell is creationism even still a thing?
Some of the things he said were so bizarre, there is no counterargument, except for to say, “So your claim is <repeat verbatim Ham’s bizarre claim>”
How did the audience behave during the debate?
Respectful, well-behaved.
Possibly bored during the portions that got into the hard science / pseudo-science (depending on who was speaking).
I watched it online. I found it interesting/amusing/effective how Bill Nye subtly pointed much of his talk at Kentucky specifically, without blatantly saying “You’re rubes, the rest of the world thinks you’re rubes, and you’re dooming your children to rubedom”. I think he managed to communicate shame without condescension, a very tough line to walk. He also did well in marginalizing Ham into the small minority position within Christianity itself.
What I found scary was how good the obfuscation and tech-babbling of the creationist presentations were. Items like the taxonomy trees, cherry-picking of data (such as radioactive decay) to misapply in an expert-sounding way, the born-again PhD researchers, gave a very effective barrier to anyone of a non-scientific education to easily poke holes in.
Ham was also an expert at jumping between wearing the hats of “scientific” expert and aw-schucks common sense good ol’ boy.
The whole ‘kinds’ thing is a big wobbly ball of nonsense - it’s designed to try to work around problems exactly such as fitting all of the ancestors of all animal life on the ark.
Supposedly, a ‘kind’ may comprise a collection of species - which may share a common ancestor - that is, there is some limited variation within a kind, permitting speciation, but no more variation than that.
Try to nail them down on specifics, and you’ll just get evasion and vague handwaving. And you’ll never get them to explain the mechanics of how the variation is limited, either. Big ball of nonsense that serves to support an argument, as long as nobody is interested in knowing how.
I did see this paragraph in a Young Earth Creationist’s review of the debate:
Bill Nye’s Reasonable Man—The Central Worldview Clash of the Ham-Nye Debate
[my bold]
So, apparently, when reason tells us that reality conflicts with scripture, it is because our reason is faulty.
If this is true, then of course you would have to reject the fossil record in favor of the Biblical record.
We are sinners who cannot trust reason. Although, wouldn’t reaching this conclusion involve reasoning and therefore possibly be incorrect? Maybe the author of the bolded sentence is suffering from noetic effects and he doesn’t realize it. But then that conclusion may be incorrect. Shit! Now I’m stuck in a faulty reasoning feedback loop. And I can’t tell if it’s a faulty “reasoning feedback loop” or a “faulty reasoning” feedback loop. 
I’m okay with Christ being divine, he did make a transcendent argument that loving fellow human beings, even enemies, is a principle and belief to organize one’s existence around. I’m also okay if it turns out he isn’t divine as he did make a transcendent argument that loving fellow human beings, even enemies, is a principle and belief to organize one’s existence around.
Now, when you say you don’t need “Christ” to think loving… is a good idea, keep in mind that Christ means “savior”, so don’t give away your argument. But most atheists thinking it is good to love fellow human beings (and most atheists I know do love their fellow human beings) doesn’t really go far enough. Christian theology, or philosophy if you don’t believe in divinity, goes a lot farther than that. Do you love your enemies? Do you think it is an organizing principle of a life and community? Are you prepared to forgive those who have hurt you?
Pat Robertson is an Elmer Gantry. He’s made billions pretending to have religion. He’s worried about this new guy being competition, forgetting that God is going to call Pat home very soon now according to the actuarial tables. New Fellow probably has the advantage of being sincere. Pat Robertson is lifelong scum.
I don’t love my enemies. I avoid “enemy” as a category. Christianity is very quick to construct dichotomies that I think interfere with human harmony.
I had no idea this Ham guy was a fellow Australian until this morning. I’m sorry about that folks.
In mitigation he’s from the state of Queensland, which is only kinda-Australia - they think of themselves as Queenslanders first and Australians second (if at all). Queensland is our Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee all rolled into one, with a light dusting of Texas sprinkled all over it for extra flavour.
It’s profitable.
I wish I was kidding, but it’s basically a business thing. Creationism keeps people dependent on evangelical Christianity to provide them with the comfort of knowledge, superiority, and community. That keeps them coming to church and paying money so the pastors can have lots of money. The pastors therefore support the Ken Hams of the world.
Other philosophies than Christianity have reached and answered these questions. A Savior, Christ, is not required to do so.
So he’s not a real Australian? 
Blimey!
What’s the dominant Christian view of Bin Laden? Hitler?
I can’t speak to what is “dominant”. The theology is that you do not hate your enemy, you love and understand their humanity. How do you do that with a genocidal psychopath? Most Christians fail at that, as I do.
When thinking of Hitler and the Nazis, which serious people to a lot, we are confronted with the question of how did they do what they did to millions of people? Are they inhuman? I don’t think so. I think they are consumed, they let themselves be consumed, by their hatred of others, their lust for power, their deep insecurities and failings. Hitler wasn’t a one-off. We will meet his kind again, and it is best to understand that reality and be prepared to head it off politically and militarily.
So…not into loving your enemies then?
[QUOTE=Dasmoocher quoting a YEC]
The problem with human reason is that it, along with every other aspect of our humanity, was corrupted by the fall. This is what theologians refer to as the “noetic effects of the fall.” We have not lost the ability to know all things, but we have lost the ability to know them on our own authority and power. We are completely dependent upon divine revelation for the answers to the most important questions of life. Our sin keeps us from seeing what is right before our eyes in nature. We are dependent upon the God who loves us enough to reveal himself to us—and to give us his Word.
As it turns out, the reality and authority of divine revelation, more than any other issue, was what the debate last night was all about. As the closing statements made very clear, Ken Ham understood that fact, but Bill Nye did not.
[/QUOTE]
That’s some real weapons-grade ignorance there. No wonder it’s taking longer than we thought!
Thanks for telling me what I think, Askance.
In mitigation you’re from Sydney, which is only kinda-Australia - Sydneysiders think of themselves as unique worldly sophisticates first and Australians second (if at all). Sydneysiders are like New Yorkers who are surprised when they travel to the United States and discover to their amazement that you can get the internet outside the Five Boroughs.