Science v Religion

I have always thought that the science v religion argument to any situation is extremely intriguing. For one person to argue that everything is due to the all mighty Lord and for another to counter argue their religious aspect with facts, evidence, numbers, and science is incredible to me. In my opinion,  Nye made more sensible and believable points and provided better evidence than Hamm. Hamm, on the other hand, as eloquent and sophisticated as he sounded with his Australian accent, sounded a bit ridiculous. All of his "proof" and "evidence" was drawn from his own website, which basically means that he was citing himself. Not too convincing in my book. Nye's argument was  based on rational thoughts: the lion's teeth were designed to eat meat, fish do not sin and therefore are not punished for their sins, etc. For Hamm to just get up there and say "the bible says this," God did this," does not sway my opinion on the matter at all. Maybe it is due to the fact that I am not a religious person and I value the validity of scientific arguments, but I agree with most of what Nye said and disregard almost everything Hamm said.