I got through the first 2/3 of this, and gave up after Ham kept repeating the same themes:
- That we cannot observe the past, and that science should be divided into "operational" and "historical" science. Ham did not explicitly state he does not accept that we can observe the speed of light, but in doing so he would have discredited his point about not being able to observe the past (i.e. every time you look up in the night sky).
- Ham seemed to infer that if you are not directly observing an event as its happening, the best you can do is to find an authoritative reference (i.e. the Bible). He explicitly rejected the idea that continuity of natural law could be used to infer history (i.e. rings of trees or ice strata can be used to determine age).
- Nye a few times offered points that are testable (i.e. find a fossil swimming through rock strata, that sort of thing), whereas Ham admittedly started with the Bible as absolute truth, and then inferred history from there.
- I did learn about the creationist concept of "kinds" - which basically said that all current species were bred (not evolved) from 1,000 base "kinds". Nye pointed out the math of the millions of species that would have appeared after the flood, which was ignored by Ham (at least as far as I got in the video). The concept of "kinds" as an origin for current species sounds like a big cop-out. It basically exists to validate the Noah story.
On the other hand, I'm not sure Nye was that great of a counterpoint. He focused far too much on the flood, I suppose because if creationists start from the Bible as absolute truth, and infer creation from that, disproving any part of the Bible would disprove creation. I don't think it's effective. The idea of "creation" is not predicated upon the flood actually happening and an ark; attacking the flood only rebuts the Bible as an authoritative source, there are plenty of other myths and legends of spontaneous creation. I am guessing that Nye's very valid point that splitting science into "observable" and "historical" is bogus was lost upon the attendees that were creationist-friendly. So was the point that non-testable beliefs are not science.
For me, this was a discouraging insight into the mindset of a religion I had walked away from. These people feel free to hijack terms, ignore evidence that leads to conclusions they don't agree with, and do so only so they can try and feel superior over their secular countrymen and co-opt education. If you don't believe science supports a truth that you don't believe in, fine. Science does not answer all questions. But don't wrap scholarly terminology around bogus arguments and call it science. I will return the favor and not call my lack of belief in the divine a religion.