Nye obviously made more convincing arguments, and got Ham to fall for some traps.
I choose the intelligent one.
Mr. Hamm seemed to be saying many incorrect facts, which mr. Nye refuted.
Evolution beats Creationism.
Bill destroyed Ham
This has been asked way to many times. Even on Christian websites Bill Nye won polls about this.
Even the supporters of Ken Ham agreed that his arguments were kinda weak...
When I was little in science class we used Bill Nye as a recourse all the time. He would make science fun for me and still be teaching me all of what i need to know.
Bill Nye: Provides tons of evidence on ice sheets, tree rings, radiometric dating, astronomical measure of distance of stars (using the information of the diameter of earths orbit and the degree of difference the star is during opposite seasons, which allows us to use trigonometry to work out the stars distance), etc. Ken Ham: All he says is "You weren't there, you don't know" or "There is a difference between historical and observational science" or "So and so believes in creationism and is also a scientist" or "God was there and he wrote a book". How did he make the assumption that god even existed in the first place?
He believes in evolution and has the evidence to back it up while Mr.Ham believes that god created this earth a couple thousand years ago but cannot back it up.
BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY