And his partner in crime, Jason Lisle. They of course are from Answers in Genesis. They debated Hugh Ross and Walt Kaiser on the John Ankerberg show. You might also say they debated John Ankerberg. Though he was supposed to act as moderator his bias was transparent throughout.
Here's why I'm impressed. Of course they are wrong on the science. But their biblical arguments are pretty good. And despite Ankerberg's absurd bias against them they remained composed.
One exchange I found funny was a question posed to Ken Hamm. He said something like "Before I answer I think there are two things that are important to keep in mind." He described the two things quickly, and Ankerberg immediately gave microphone control right back to the old earther's before Hamm even got to his answer. This was typical throughout the debate. Meanwhile Kaiser would ramble on and on and say nothing for long stretches, yet Ankerberg wouldn't interrupt him. Or when he was asked a question he'd just refuse to answer. For instance Hamm asked him "Did cancer exist before the fall?" Kaiser responds "I don't think they knew what cancer was back then." Such was typical of Kaiser, yet Ankerberg treated him with reverence, whereas his contempt for Hamm was obvious.
I don't know much about Ken Hamm. He might be a jerk, and maybe Ankerberg treated him unfairly for this reason. If what I know of his treatment of AIG Australia branch is accurate, then he's dished out far worse. Within this debate though I have to admit he did well in spite of having the deck stacked against him.