Nye: Point
Ham: "Can't know the past"
Nye: Point
Ham: "Bible tells us this"
That's pretty much what I got out of this.
And I guess that's my problem with this view. I do agree that Science does have to make some assumptions and thus starts on a bit of faith, but that is a starting point. You do have to have faith in the way certain things work but as we go, we find evidence that disproves or supports the idea and we build or change based on that.
But Ham's view takes the book as an absolute. You cannot prove anything about it wrong nor change anything about it. Any evidence to the contrary is glazed over with those two above mentioned counters. So rather than just going out and trying to find how things work and piecing it together step by step and fixing wrong answers as we go, they try to take everything and wedge it in to fit the view they want it to. For me it's just hard to reconcile it.