Ken didn't defend/define why Creationism is viable, he just quoted the bible, which was not the charter of the debate. He also ignores about 95% of evidence and considers it not needed. And... He takes the Bible literally... except when he does't... by his own admittance. You know because we weren't there. Oh and how about what police investigations do into murders... they weren't there, yet he recognizes their authority and method.

Bill was a Buffon initially. He kept God out of it... but drew Politics and the government into it. He was very good at looking at thing from a perspective of defending/proving Evolution viable following the charter of the debate. He did try to keep Ken off balance...

Ken really is very practiced and versed (pun in not intentional) and nearly inflexible in his responses, responses were very over-arching and very "Bible-Bible-Bible-Bible-Bible" (refer to the Badger Song)... Presenting not very much real evidence except "Faith based" reasoning... which to be honest, is not enough.

Bill... he did a good job in his responses, except he fumbled a lot... and someone like PZ Myers would have been a *MUCH* *MUCH* better candidate than Bill in there.

Over all, Ken gets creationism in the mind share eyes, but didn't actually stick to the debate charter, cherry picked extreme examples and "proved atheists are scared of him." Bill talked about Bow ties and IMO very nonsensical about at times, but got his message across, though stumbled a lot. But did get some really good jabs in there that Ken ignored.

Question from the Audience... (except for the favorite color question) were not answered in anyway with well qualified manner from either participant.

All in all: Neither side presented good enough data nor in a convincing manner to "Win." Nor did either side present well enough to sway the other side in the least. Neither did either side find anything really wrong with their own sides data/presentation. Even though they were both horrid for their own reasons.