Great Podcast!!! Very informative, scientific and to the facts.
As for the discontents, mainly Niki..., a few quick responses while trying not to waste too much time on your nonsensical babble.
1. You need to really study evolution, because by your own points you obviously don't understand the basics.
2. Your citations are extremely out of date and the intermediate evidence has further confirmed evolution as sound science and factual.
3. Scientifically, there is no such thing as Micro or Macro evolution. "This ain't econ, boy!" There is no place where adaptation in small steps is micro and turns into macro, its a continual progression of small steps all the way leading on through natural history. We just pick points to illustrate the path, which we call links. You don't need every foot step to see someone’s journey.
4. Religious Bias argument is not ad hominem, though not a good argument. Calling into question a persons ideological basis is a legit argument, though not the best of argument, and is not really a personal attack coming under ad hominem.
5. "Macro-evolution is not scientific". First, note 3 above. Second, you need to redefine scientific since your def is rather misleading. Note this dictionary definition of the scientific method by which something becomes scientific:
"principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"
NOTE: You don't need to repeat the occurrence, or "repeat evolution", you just need to make the hypothesis, develop tests and data observations and experiments that are repeatable and falsifiable, and do them and get the results. (then peer review etc.)
6. There is no way to debate creationists on equal terms since A: creationism is not scientific (refer to the note in #5 above) B: Creationism exists only in the negative (evolution denial) and tries to point out small aspects not yet fully known while remaining ignorant of the science as a whole. (This would be like denying Galileo's proof of the Earth orbiting the Sun since his orbital path calculations where incorrect [he believe them to be spherical].)
7. "Missing Links" blah blah blah. Interesting word play, BUT, despite your illogical wordplay, it remains true that the growing number of fossils fit the models set based on evolution, there really isn't any speculation at issue. Thus it is "Proof" and the interchangeability argument really doesn't make sense as neither of your terms are defined or examples given.
8. Ok, your flawed, we are all flawed, but more importantly, YOUR ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY AND EVIDENTIALLY FLAWED, thus why any reasonable individual cannot accept it.
9. Ok, Genesis is not scientific, creationism is not scientific, and if you can give us a hypothesis, an experiment to test aspects of creationism it will never be. Things not proven by evolution, nor things shown not explained under our understanding of evolution thus far doesn't prove creationism. When people didn't understand the causes of rain, it didn't mean it was god. Now we understand the forces and natural laws behind rain, then we didn't. There is no scientific evidence for creationism, just evidence of hypotheses we need to rethink, and whose negation proves the existence of god/creationism as much as it proves Santa and the Teapot God of Russell.
10. Biochemistry..... just read any critique on Behe, and the recent evidence and studies confirming Biochemical evolution. Just do a Google scholar search.
11. As for probability, one side note..... TAKE AN EVOLUTION CLASS OR LISTEN TO THE PODCAST!!!!! There is not blind probability in evolution, since it is shaped and acted upon by natural laws and forces (natural selection). It is being shaped and manipulated by these laws, and is not left to "chance" which is measured in probability. Perhaps the chance of an elephant occurring may be 1/billion, but the chance of something elephant like occurring through evolution is 100%. The chance of you winning the lottery is low, but the chance of someone winning is 100%. This is often hard for some people to get there mind around. Think of it this way, out of all the directions for a rock to go when I drop it in a vacuum (lets say 360* of angle so each degree, so 360 options for the sake of argument) the chance of it going at that one degree straight toward the ground is 1/360. But when there is a natural force involved affecting it, the probability is meaningless and pointless since it is misleading and false since the chance of it going that direction is not 1/360 but 1/1 (100%). Once evolution is active, there is no probability since the progression is governed by laws. Not to say evolution is 100% correct, but simply you argument is not applicable to the theory. You are thinking of spontaneous life from non-life which is probability, and that is not part of evolution . In summary, take a college bio class or something, and listen.
Science doesn't prove the bible, nor will it ever. You need a history class for that, and that has shown it to be non-historical. Such overt statements of nonsense, completely unjustified seem to prove ignorance more than anything else. There is no HARD DATA for Christianity, nor are you able to put any forth. Please keep your religion out of science and we will let you continue in your ignorance. But please don't pretend that because you read some crack job vague watered down overview by Gish and Behe that you really know anything on the subject.
Last thought.... let's follow your logic. Things are complex, and therefore this proves they are created by a designor who is more complex in order to create them. Wouldn't it follow with that logic that we need a more more complex designor to create the designor? Your logic is circular... ie. doesn't prove anything.