I notice that the question starts with the assumption that science and creation are at odds, and what Hamm is selling is creation. Nye messed up by giving them that false assumption from the start.
I see in the opening that Hamm is trying to redefine "science" to mean only those things directly observable by man. So much for forensics, fire investigation, etc. Following that, he states that conventional science says that man is "only" an animal. Then he equivocates the methodological naturalism of science, with ontological naturalism, and therefore atheism.
Nothing new there.
Nye nails him on the "historical science" scam, but fails to point out that creation and creationism are entirely different things. Nice touch, twitting creationists on the fact that the fossil record is entirely inconsistent with YE creationism.
I notice that Hamm set up a strawman that scientists claim that YE creationists can't do science. He then trots out a number of such scientists, but no biologists. There are a few biologists who are YE, but Hamm is pretty unhappy with the opinions of those creationists.
Big goof by Hamm, claiming that atheistic scientists depend on the 'Christian' scientific method. It was mostly developed by the Ionan Greeks (pagans) and the Arabs (Muslim). But I doubt if many in the audience realized it. Let's see if Nye gets him on that.
Hamm played the "you can't depend on radioactive elements" card. Let's see if Nye nails him on the evidence from Pompeii and Lake Sugutsu, showing that the method works. Again, Hamm is pretending that if you accept science as it exists today, that you can't accept creation.
Hamm then reworks genesis to make it "reproduce after their kind".
Hamm wrongly claims that the "tree of life" was Darwin's invention. In fact, that was discovered by Linnaeus. Hamm claims that "observational science" is scientists finding that dogs have a common ancestor, while the same evidence shows bears, seals, cats, and dogs have a common ancestor. Let's see if Nye nails him on that.
(skip to Nye)
Nye starts talking about fossils. Millions of layers of ancient life under the ampitheater. Impossible to have formed in such a short time. Good shot.
Mentions ice cores in continental glaciers. 680,000 winter/summer cycles. Nice, but he didn't mention how we know. Varves would be more effective, since they are demonstrably seasonal, due to pollen differences in the light/dark layers. Mentions ancient trees, much older than the flood. Not bad.
Nye discusses the layers in the Grand Canyon, but fails to mention the deserts and forests that would have had to form in the middle of the Great flood. Another Nye failure. Good about the ancient river beds cut through by the modern canyon. Also good, asking why there aren't Grand Canyons in all continents. Hits once more on the fact that fossils are inconsistent with creationism. The old "rabbit in the Cambrian" point.
Nye did well in showing up the ludicrous idea of an "Australian land bridge", and questioning why there are no fossils of kangaroos anywhere but Australia, and not a sign of any land bridge. Mentions perhaps 16 million species, from supposed 7000 kinds, that would mean eleven new species every day. Great shot. Should have followed up with many millions of species of large mammals. Something like the entire land surface of the Earth having maybe a dozen of them per acre. (about a football field). How did they all feed, raise young, etc?
I'll have to end it here. Maybe I'll look in later.
Mentions Lake Missoula, with an ice dam breaking.
