There is one thing, however, I think Bill missed. At one point he asked Ken Ham point blank: what would it take for you to change your mind? Ham responded that he is a Christian, and Creationism is inherent to that. Ham feels that religious evidence trumps scientific evidence across the board. He admits it openly, and honestly I can't blame him. That position is not intellectually dishonest.
However, Ham doesn't just assert that Creation happened. He goes further, and argues that the *scientific* evidence supports Creationism. So my question for Ham would be, what evidence would cause him to admit that the *scientific* evidence is against Creationism? He could look at that evidence and stick to his guns for religious reasons. New evidence could always turn up later that supports him. But biblical authority aside, could he ever admit that the available scientific evidence is against him? If Bill had asked that question, then I think it would have revealed Ken Ham for the intellectual fraud that he is.