Certainly enjoyed listening to this debate and thought there were definitely interesting points brought up on both sides. Essentially what I felt it came down to was Ken Ham saying since there is some way to explain it, it must be a viable take on what happened. I thought the best thing the creationist viewpoint brought to the table was the the idea that we couldn't have observed things that long ago and our dating systems very well couldn't be accurate. Who is to say the rate of radioactive decay hasn't drastically changed over time?
At the same time though, it realistically is an accurate method of dating under the assumption that rates haven't changed and it provides more than enough compelling evidence that the creationist model is wrong. I think that, along with the idea of tree rings and ice layers pretty clearly shows the earth is older than 6000 years.

In the end though, it really does come down to what you believe in. If you believe in the Bible as an observational account, you very well could see creationism as a viable model. But if you see radio carbon dating along with other scientific methods based on assumptions as the truth, then creationism very clearly isn't a viable model.