It seemed to be a bad idea to even try, and it did raise a lot of money through ticket sales for the Fred Flintstone-really-rode-dinosuars Museum, but...
even a creationist web site has a poll up as to who won the debate, and the latest results are
debate summary & analysis links, some with video of the event:
Ham's odd assertion that science has to be "observational" rather than " historical science based on belief" was hilarious. His claim: You can't tell how old the Earth is, 'cause we weren't there when it formed. You can't tell how fossils appeared in Grand Canyon rocks, 'cause we weren't there...
Of course, science based on historical reconstruction, when done properly, is just as valid as science based on direct, real-time observation. As Nye pointed out, just looking up into the sky is a historical reconstruction.
Everyone firmly believes many things that happened in the past that they didn't have a chance to observe. I'd ask Ken Ham "How do you know that Abraham Lincoln was President? After all, you never met him?" How do we know anything about Greek civilization, or that there were Ice Ages?"
Of course Ham had no answers for the existence of ice cores with records of 680,000 winters (rather than 6,000) and the billions of stars that are over 6,000 light years away.
Overall it was a good night for reason over superstition, for both non-believers and believers alike (the overwhelming majority of followers of every major religion worldwide, including Christianity, accepts the fundamental principles of evolution as established science)