If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

I can't tell you how EXCITED I was when I first read the news about this debate when it was announced! I'll always remember the time and place I was when I did - I bet everyone will! I definitely would call this "The Clash of the Century" or "The Scopes' Trial 2"; I think a fairly engaging and really entertaining debate - I think MORE legit than the 1925 Scopes' Trial, or even that BOGUS & deceptive movie "Inherit the Wind" which was willingly made by the IRS simply to make creationists look ignorant & dumb. Shame on you, Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly, & Hollywood! It's seriously one of the worst films ever made, no matter what people or Hollywood say.Since Bill Nye's controversial video, "Creationism Isn't Appropriate For Children," there's been much replies, much banter, and much cyber-bullying to those who are being questioned for their faith in Christ. I would argue that evolution isn't appropriate for ANYONE! Just look at a lot of the social ills that Darwinian evolution has been the backbone of, whether it be Social, Communism, Nazism, Eugenics, etc. That teaching alone is rather "child abuse" in itself. I was actually expected SOMEONE to bring up the joke that both Ken Ham and Bill Nye look like Abraham Lincoln. lolThough I'm not sure either side "won" - all the various websites make their own claims of who was rather the winner. I sort of wish Kent Hovind would've debated Nye instead. But in the end, it's pretty good! Do check it out on YouTube. Pretty much my full review of this debate can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9jfqa2KpuU

As with many I heard about this debate after it had occurred. As the bits of the internet I tend to use would tends towards Nye, of course I heard he "won" the debate while unsurprisingly a bit of Googling revealed that those websites that support the whole idea of God and Jesus, tended to think that Ham "won". This didn't surprise me since neither camp was going to be convinced to even consider their position for a second but I still hoped that the debate would be interesting. It was in spurts but again unsurprisingly the debate features two people repeating their points rather than really engaging. The structure of the debate doesn't really help; the first hour is each man getting 30 minutes solo. After this rebuttals are very short. The question and answer session which made up the final section was disappointing as it took questions from the audience so, rather than testing either man, they were written with a very thinly hidden agenda one way or the other behind the question and both men just repeated their position.In terms of who won? Well, whatever you think before you begin is what you will think at the end, so whomever has the view closest to you will be the one you agree with most and thus think "won". In terms of the two as debaters; Nye seems to enjoy the publicity but otherwise there is no reason for him to be here since he is not debating scientific fact behind creationism but rather debating the unprovable existence or not of God. As a result he can never get going and he isn't helped by some rambling moments, poor jokes and an inability to move the debate to his home territory. Ham at least plays strongly to his base because he never wavers – his "there is a book line" is old after the second time, but it does work as a debate point because ultimately this is what it comes down to since as a man of faith, of course some of his "facts" will be "because God did it". I didn't think this made for a good debate, but it was not a surprise and it is amusing how many people seem upset by this despite going in knowing who the two men were.Moderation is OK but the scope of the debate is too limited and the position of the two men far too diverse. The 2-minute questions was a good place to expand the debate but by using audience questions (some of which the moderator struggled to read – not a good sign) it missed a trick and just continued the predetermined agenda path. It will work as confirmation of whichever side you already agree with, but as a debate it is disappointingly unsurprising throughout.

First, the problem - The moderation seemed necessary at the time to keep people on topic but ultimately just led in the debaters being unable to refute the opponent's statements occasionally. The moderation just got in the way, and the timed sentences ended great points prematurely a couple of times. Normally, this would be a big problem, but the debate was so entertaining that it wasn't that big of a deal.The good - The debate was highly entertaining, albeit slightly unfair with Nye's charisma. Nye and Ham differ so much in their speaking style that it's like watching two completely different species debate. Ken Ham: Ken Ham uses a slick political style of speaking - his volume oscillates, and he makes as many claims as possible in the time given so that Nye will surely not have enough time to address every one. He also pulls the classic effective politician trick of being slick in the way he answers so that he can answer questions without actually answer them. He would have been a lot more convincing if he had more confidence. That was likely his biggest weakness - there were moments where it felt like he was rambling to pass the time until the next question. Despite the confidence issue, he clearly knew what he's doing, and his method still works great...Bill Nye: ...if the opponent isn't a highly skilled science educator. As an educator, Bill Nye has a totally different style of speaking - He has a constant volume, and tries to stay as concise, clear, and to the point as possible. He uses the classic style of any good professor to where his confidence and clarity can convince you of anything, which is especially effective when he's convincing the audience with common sense. There were several times during the debate, especially towards the end, where Ham used his slick political style, and Nye replied to it with conciseness, confidence, and clarity. I was iffy about Bill Nye, a man without a doctorate, being the one to debate Ham, but now I understand why - Nye is unbelievably charismatic and has a lot of influence in the United States, and doesn't come across as just another jaded college professor.