Slashdot Mirror

Just in case anyone thinks SubtleNuance was engaging in pointless stone-throwing, that the evolutionists are running and hiding from this stunning logic, and that the word 'microevolution' is meaningful...

CB902. "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution."

It's possible that SubtleNuance was jumping down the throat of someone just trying to respond to the grandparent on their own terms. No offense intended, in that case.

Dogmatic atheism, eh? ICC to the rescue!

CA602. "Evolution is atheistic."

And related.

CA602.1. "Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
CA602.2. "Scientists aim to make God unnecessary."

That sort of thing would tend to work againt your claim, wouldn't it?

If you'll look in the ICC under "CB: Biology", you'll notice that the responses to claims which actually say something about biology tend to reference mainstream peer-reviewed research. Unless (random example) you're saying that (a) Darwin's original The Origin of Species, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences and Current Biology are fringe-science publications which have nothing to do with accepted evolution theory.

Dogmatic atheism, eh? ICC to the rescue!

CA602. "Evolution is atheistic."

And related.

CA602.1. "Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
CA602.2. "Scientists aim to make God unnecessary."

That sort of thing would tend to work againt your claim, wouldn't it?

If you'll look in the ICC under "CB: Biology", you'll notice that the responses to claims which actually say something about biology tend to reference mainstream peer-reviewed research. Unless (random example) you're saying that (a) Darwin's original The Origin of Species, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences and Current Biology are fringe-science publications which have nothing to do with accepted evolution theory.

Dogmatic atheism, eh? ICC to the rescue!

CA602. "Evolution is atheistic."

And related.

CA602.1. "Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
CA602.2. "Scientists aim to make God unnecessary."

That sort of thing would tend to work againt your claim, wouldn't it?

If you'll look in the ICC under "CB: Biology", you'll notice that the responses to claims which actually say something about biology tend to reference mainstream peer-reviewed research. Unless (random example) you're saying that (a) Darwin's original The Origin of Species, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences and Current Biology are fringe-science publications which have nothing to do with accepted evolution theory.

Dogmatic atheism, eh? ICC to the rescue!

CA602. "Evolution is atheistic."

And related.

CA602.1. "Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
CA602.2. "Scientists aim to make God unnecessary."

That sort of thing would tend to work againt your claim, wouldn't it?

If you'll look in the ICC under "CB: Biology", you'll notice that the responses to claims which actually say something about biology tend to reference mainstream peer-reviewed research. Unless (random example) you're saying that (a) Darwin's original The Origin of Species, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences and Current Biology are fringe-science publications which have nothing to do with accepted evolution theory.

I hope this gets fixed soon. Because now when you search for talk.origins the first thing that pops up is true.origins. www.trueorigin.com which I won't link to. They are a bunch of willfully ignorant creationists. Sorry that was redundant.

Anyway, here's the proper link http://www.talkorigins.org/ if you can't find it with google. I occassionally use other search engines like AllTheWeb if I can't find what I'm looking for with google.

And there's nothing on the Talk.origins news page about the delisting.

I hope this gets fixed soon. Because now when you search for talk.origins the first thing that pops up is true.origins. www.trueorigin.com which I won't link to. They are a bunch of willfully ignorant creationists. Sorry that was redundant.

Anyway, here's the proper link http://www.talkorigins.org/ if you can't find it with google. I occassionally use other search engines like AllTheWeb if I can't find what I'm looking for with google.

And there's nothing on the Talk.origins news page about the delisting.

They link back (in the Index to Creationist Claims) to the original site that made the claim, and on the main ICC page, they link to the rebuttal at CreationWiki.

Well, besides the fact the web has a well-known anti-scientific bias (and if you don't believe me, just look at some of the stuff out there! :-)), it's still an interesting point, and why this article does deserve to be on /.

Here's a controversial subject (doesn't matter what it is). Could someone maliciously see to it that the primary site of one perspective on the debate is "de-indexed" by search engines such as google, in order that people have greater difficulty finding it? Think of what would happen if during a political campaign someone did that to a candidate's site, leaving only the opposing, critical sites at the top of google's list? It's less obvious than cracking the site so it was non-functional, or replacing the front page with something flagrantly malicious. A web master might not notice for a while, and then they might find it challenging to find and fix the problem (for all the reasons described in the article), and even when fixed I don't think the site would bubble back to the top of google's search list for a while.

To put it in perspective, the talk.origins web pages at issue here have been around at that address at least as long as google itself has existed, probably longer, yet they now appear nowhere on the first page of google's search. That's weird and unhelpful. It's as if you typed in the word "Ford" and "Ford Motor Company" was nowhere to be found.

It's probably just idle spammers attacking random sites, but IF somebody did have the intention was to knock talk.origins off google's search list (which I doubt), it would be simultaneously a subtle and effective way to do it -- much more effective than the usual vandalism.

Except Islamic. Under the guise of "tolerance", they actively censor anything which might be percieved as anti-Islamic (ie, everything).

Except Islamic. Under the guise of "tolerance", they actively censor anything which might be percieved as anti-Islamic (ie, everything).

Except Islamic. Under the guise of "tolerance", they actively censor anything which might be percieved as anti-Islamic (ie, everything).

Except Islamic. Under the guise of "tolerance", they actively censor anything which might be percieved as anti-Islamic (ie, everything).

You're missing the point. The article mentions that the webmaster got this message: No pages from your site are currently included in Google's index due to violations of the webmaster guidelines. Please review our webmaster guidelines and modify your site so that it meets those guidelines. Once your site meets our guidelines, you can request reinclusion and we'll evaluate your site. Which insinuates that there is a blacklist somewhere which contains talkorigins.org. It would not be a big deal to add an additional field to that listing which would allow for the following improved message: No pages from your site are currently included in Google's index due to violations of the webmaster guidelines on http://www.talkorigins.org/index.html (and possibly elsewhere). Please review our webmaster guidelines and modify your site so that it meets those guidelines. Once your site meets our guidelines, you can request reinclusion and we'll evaluate your site. See? Sure, it would be "easier", but a useful feature is still a useful feature, and this is one that would be easy to implement.

Google delisted talk.origins for a reason, correct? Regardless of what the reason was, or what method was used to find out the reason, there was a reason.

The issue is that the webmaster was never told what the reason was!

Bad analogy time:

If the phone company were to arbitrarily remove my business listing from the phonebook, I should at the very least be given an explanation as to why.

Isn't it because of their robots.txt? http://talkorigins.org/robots.txt

# robots.txt for http://www.talkorigins.org/

# This document is to tell robots
# (sometimes called spiders) which are
# means of automatically grabbing our files
# what they can and cannot do. Robots are
# used by search engines, archivers
# (www.archive.org for example) and by spammers
# looking for email addresses

# This file must be in the root directory and called
# robots.txt

# This file can be validated at
# http://www.searchengineworld.com/cgi-bin/robotchec k.cgi
# More info can be found at
# http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/exclusion-admin.html
# and many other places via Googling robots.txt

# User-agent '*' means any robot.

User-agent: *

Disallow: /faqs/comdesc/contact.html
Disallow: /faqs/comdesc/DLTtools.js
Disallow: /faqs/comdesc/drafts/
Disallow: /faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

Disallow: /origins/contact.html
Disallow: /cgi-bin/
Disallow: /scgi-bin/
Disallow: /work/
Disallow: /rss/test.xml

Isn't it because of their robots.txt? http://talkorigins.org/robots.txt

# robots.txt for http://www.talkorigins.org/

# This document is to tell robots
# (sometimes called spiders) which are
# means of automatically grabbing our files
# what they can and cannot do. Robots are
# used by search engines, archivers
# (www.archive.org for example) and by spammers
# looking for email addresses

# This file must be in the root directory and called
# robots.txt

# This file can be validated at
# http://www.searchengineworld.com/cgi-bin/robotchec k.cgi
# More info can be found at
# http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/exclusion-admin.html
# and many other places via Googling robots.txt

# User-agent '*' means any robot.

User-agent: *

Disallow: /faqs/comdesc/contact.html
Disallow: /faqs/comdesc/DLTtools.js
Disallow: /faqs/comdesc/drafts/
Disallow: /faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

Disallow: /origins/contact.html
Disallow: /cgi-bin/
Disallow: /scgi-bin/
Disallow: /work/
Disallow: /rss/test.xml

That's the Google Groups archive of the talk.origins newsgroup, which is a different animal (an ancestral form, one might say) from the Talk.Origins Archive web site. It was the site that was delisted.

And indeed, as of right now (10:35 PM CST) a Google search for "talk.origins" doesn't show any links at all to the Talk.Origins Archive. In fact, the first link that comes up is to a young-Earth creationist site which claims to offer "intellectually honest responses to the claims of evolutionism's proponents, including--but not limited to--the 'Talk.Origins' newsgroup and the 'Talk.Origins Archive' website."

Conclusions about species competing in crowded niches are left as an exercise to the reader.

"The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another." -- http://www.talkorigins.org/

No, no, not bible-beating rednecks, well-heeled industry shills! And that stereotype exists largely because there's a well-documented conspiracy to debase science and muddy the waters on behalf of said industry. (There's an analogue for creationism as well.)

You're welcome to question global warming, just as you're welcome to question the theory of evolution. It gets old when the same tired crap is thrown out time and again, designed not to advance anyone's understanding of anything, but to sow public confusion and doubt.

When Man and Dinosaur Walked in Paluxy

Following out the implications of the Genesis account of Creation, young-earth creationists claim that dinosaurs and humans lived together on the earth at the same time. Of course evolutionary theorists think that is true as well in the sense that contemporary birds are likely the descendants of and are classified in the same taxonomic group as the dinosaurs. But that is not what creationists have in mind. YECs hold that the picture of cavemen living in the Lost World with T-Rex and the other terrible lizards is no mere schoolchild's or Hollywood fantasy, and that the Bible tells us so.

Dinosaurs, they claim, are mentioned in the Bible as the Behemoth and the Leviathan. Institute for Creation Research (ICR) scientists say that the former was probably a dinosaur because of its Scriptural description. They give away posters of a seated man observing what appears to be an Apatosaurus with the scriptural passage from Job: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together" (40:15-17). At the Museum of Creation and Earth History, our guide drew the children's attention to the phrase "he moveth his tail like a cedar," noting that no animal we know of besides dinosaurs had a tail so large. Scholars of biblical Hebrew would have to stifle a chuckle if they heard this exegesis, for the King James translation utilizes the term "tail" as a common euphemism for the male genital member. Stephen Mitchell's authoritative translation of the book of Job removes the linguistic fig-leaf and renders the passage somewhat differently: "Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass like a bull. Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor."

Obviously, this is not the "proof text" that it might have appeared to be on its face. Similarly, the supposed physical evidence that creationists have pointed to that humans and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously has proven to be not quite what they purported it to be.

the first institution in the world whose contents, with the exception of a few turtles swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake.

I'm confused - was there an increase in genetic information as a result of this experiment? More generally, has there EVER been an increase in genetic information?

Amid a bunch of other stuff, talkorigins has a nice photgraph of bones from the hindleg of a humpback whale, specifically a femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal. This dolphin's rear fins will be similarly composed, and not at all like fish fins in skeletal structure. It'll be pretty cool to see how it compares to other known cetacean rear legs from both modern examples and the fossil record once they X-ray the fins.

List of transitional fossils
Intermediate forms

Also:

Talk Origins FAQ
and specifically:

Transitional vertebrates FAQ
More on intermediates

If you can explain what exactly is meant by "supports evolution", I'd gladly provide you with many more links. Or better yet, learn to use Google.

Read it and weep, creationist.

List of transitional fossils
Intermediate forms

Also:

Talk Origins FAQ
and specifically:

Transitional vertebrates FAQ
More on intermediates

If you can explain what exactly is meant by "supports evolution", I'd gladly provide you with many more links. Or better yet, learn to use Google.

Read it and weep, creationist.

List of transitional fossils
Intermediate forms

Also:

Talk Origins FAQ
and specifically:

Transitional vertebrates FAQ
More on intermediates

If you can explain what exactly is meant by "supports evolution", I'd gladly provide you with many more links. Or better yet, learn to use Google.

Read it and weep, creationist.

In case any creationist tries to pull "it is just a fin" consider a Humpback whale with vestial legs complete with leg bones. Link has photograph of the leg bones. Another link (PDF) - Mike Hopkins

Actually, there have been many, many so-called transitional fossils discovered. So I guess now you can buy into all this macroevolution stuff, hey kid?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

What? You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know anything at all about genetics? Genetics immeasurably supports evolution. It does not roadblock it in any way. Read this: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.h tml

I have since been informed that this sort of thing comes straight out of Immanual Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision". Talk.Origins provides a Faq

The article will lead us to believe that a bone was cracked, and fresh dino blood spilled out. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Please read this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.htm l and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.htm l

The article will lead us to believe that a bone was cracked, and fresh dino blood spilled out. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Please read this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.htm l and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.htm l

The Schwietzer saga has drug on for years now. Her most recent discovery promotes a lot of creationist nonsense that I refuted in Dino Blood Redux.

I see a lot of the same claims over and over again. "We can't predict the weather a week from now; how will we predict the climate in ten years?" "Michael Crichton says it's all a liberal conspiracy." I wish there existed a resource like the index to creationist claims at the talk.origins archive. Like, if someone says "yeah, well, even Darwiniacs admit there are gaps in the fossil record!", I can just say "BZZT! CC201!" and not have to repeat myself.

Something like that for climate change would be really, really useful.

I see a lot of the same claims over and over again. "We can't predict the weather a week from now; how will we predict the climate in ten years?" "Michael Crichton says it's all a liberal conspiracy." I wish there existed a resource like the index to creationist claims at the talk.origins archive. Like, if someone says "yeah, well, even Darwiniacs admit there are gaps in the fossil record!", I can just say "BZZT! CC201!" and not have to repeat myself.

Something like that for climate change would be really, really useful.

I'd take exception to that. Here are a few things to keep in mind ...

Evidence against a scientific theory of one sort or another does not constitute evidence for deities, let alone one particular deity.

The Big Bang -- including the fact that time began at the same instant as all the matter and energy in the universe,

The mere existence of the Big Bang isn't evidence of anything.

and the fact that the laws of physics and the physical constants were set at that time (or about 10^-40 seconds after) to values within extremely narrow ranges that would permit the possibility of any life at any time or place in the universe

This argument is weak for many reasons, as a purview of the literature on the anthropic principle would tell you. Not only does it gloss over the difference between "life" and "life as we know it" (we have no idea what kind of life might exist in a universe radically different from our own), the mere existence of life does not argue in favor of any supernatural mechanism for setting the values of the physical constants. (See here for further discussion of this point.) In fact, the Ikeda-Jefferys argument shows, under very general assumptions, that once you condition on the fact that life does exist, fine-tuning argues against supernaturalism.

Biochemical design -- there are literal motors inside cells!

Biological motors are different from the motors that humans build, but even if they were the same, so what? Do you have some reason to believe that humans can't design things similar to what evolved naturally?

Yet humans have not even come close to replicating these naturally created motors in efficiency, and cannot even come close to producing this kind of motor at a micrometer level.

So what? Do you have some reason to believe that evolution taking place over billions of years in trillions upon trillions of cells must be less efficient the design of humans over a few centuries? Already, genetic algorithms using "blind evolution" can surpass intentional human design.

Paley's watchmaker argument, anyone?

Paley's argument is asinine and has been disavowed by most serious philosophers and theologicians. Duh, if you see something that is identical to something you know was designed, it is reasonable to conclude it was designed. It just begs the question.

cells contain coded information using "letters" and "words" telling it how to do things. Only certain combinations of "letters" form valid "words". Furthermore, this information is "translated" to another form of code as it is carried from the nucleus to the part of the cell that carries out the work.

Again, so what?

Information always comes from intelligence, and this translation effect really adds to the argument.

Circular argument. You assume information must come from intelligence, and therefore conclude that information in cells comes from intelligence. Of course, it is trivially false according to the ideas of Shannon information theory that "information comes from intelligence"; an information (in the form of negentropy) can be assigned to any physical system. But if you mean to say "Coding comes from intelligence", that is again circular.

Naturalistic impossibility of the origins of life. Life appeared too shortly after the Late Heavy Bombardment, too quickly, and in a too complex state for naturalism.

Prove it.

The earth went from an abiotic state to fully functioning life in only 10 to 50 million years, in the hostile environments of early earth, in the complete absence of prebiotic soup.

I have no idea how you arrived at that date, or how you can purport to prove that the conditions of the Earth at that time preclude the formation of life.

Some of the best scientists of antiquity have been men of deep unwavering faith. Why is that so upsetting to so many today?

Your peppered moth was bad science and a hoax. Not taking shots, but the facts don't support the oft-repeated story.

It wasn't a hoax, nor was it bad science. It's true that the "story" doesn't fully reflect the facts, however.

Mutation is observable and observation makes for good science. Extrapolation allows for the possibility of mutation combining to make new types of creatures, but that has not been observed - just postulated

Speciation has been observed. Of course the new species are so similar to the original lineage that creationists deny that it even exists. But it does exist, and evolution predicts that similarity. We will never see fish turning into dinosaurs or whatever creationists demand evidence of, not on human timescales. But we don't have to; even if speciation is never observed directly, the evidence of its occurrence is overwhelming.

Of course mutations occur. Frankly they are almost always "less fit" and become a failure.

Actually, most of the time they are simply neutral.

Interestingly, while it makes creatures more fit for a specific environment, the narrowing of the gene pool (in general) makes the overall creature less fit for general purposes

That's true. What's your point?

While observation of variation through adaptation and natural selection is reliable and repeatable, this does not make for creation of new species, just new variants which are extremely similar.

See the point above. New species ARE "new variants which are extremely similar". That's exactly how evolution produces new species. And we know that they are new species because they cannot produce fertile offspring with the original species.

Gould said that "phyletic gradualism" was "never seen in the rocks" which is why he created the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This has never been observed, either, but it shows that lack of evidence doesn't necessitate discrediting conventional wisdom.

Neither of your claims is correct. There is evidence supporting both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. The true story is likely to be more complex than one or the other.

I'll admit that there is evidence which appears explainable via evolution, but there are other explanations as well.

"God did it" is always an "explanation" that can explain any conceivable evidence or lack thereof. It's not a useful explanation, however. Name one valid scientific explanation that is an alternative to evolution.

Some of the best scientists of antiquity have been men of deep unwavering faith. Why is that so upsetting to so many today?

Who says that it is? Faith is fine as long as it doesn't blind you to reality.

Actually, the "Peppered Moth" research was a hoax.

That turns out not to be the case. It's also fairly irrelevant as far as the evidence for evolution goes.

Showing how a species evolves into a wholly different species capable of breeding among themselves but being unable to breed with the former species would be a remarkable proof.

Reproductive isolation in the presence of mutation and recombination is more than sufficient. When two subpopulations do not interbreed, their genomes begin to diverge; eventually the populations are different enough that they cannot interbreed even if re-exposed to each other. Not only has speciation been directly observed (also here), the fact that all known species share common descent is proven beyond all reasonable doubt by the twin nested hierarchy of genetic and morphological evidence. Sadly, creationists require unreasonable doubt.

Actually, the "Peppered Moth" research was a hoax.

That turns out not to be the case. It's also fairly irrelevant as far as the evidence for evolution goes.

Showing how a species evolves into a wholly different species capable of breeding among themselves but being unable to breed with the former species would be a remarkable proof.

Reproductive isolation in the presence of mutation and recombination is more than sufficient. When two subpopulations do not interbreed, their genomes begin to diverge; eventually the populations are different enough that they cannot interbreed even if re-exposed to each other. Not only has speciation been directly observed (also here), the fact that all known species share common descent is proven beyond all reasonable doubt by the twin nested hierarchy of genetic and morphological evidence. Sadly, creationists require unreasonable doubt.

Actually, the "Peppered Moth" research was a hoax.

That turns out not to be the case. It's also fairly irrelevant as far as the evidence for evolution goes.

Showing how a species evolves into a wholly different species capable of breeding among themselves but being unable to breed with the former species would be a remarkable proof.

Reproductive isolation in the presence of mutation and recombination is more than sufficient. When two subpopulations do not interbreed, their genomes begin to diverge; eventually the populations are different enough that they cannot interbreed even if re-exposed to each other. Not only has speciation been directly observed (also here), the fact that all known species share common descent is proven beyond all reasonable doubt by the twin nested hierarchy of genetic and morphological evidence. Sadly, creationists require unreasonable doubt.

Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Hall BG, Zuzel T, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Jun 77:6 3529-33

Abstract: "Mutations that alter the ebgA gene so that the evolved beta-galactosidase (ebg) enzyme of Escherichia coli can hydrolyze lactose fall into two classes: class I mutants use only lactose, whereas class II mutants use lactulose as well as lactose..." (Obviously, in a lactose-rich environment, this makes E. coli more fit.)

Now that I pointed you to the paper will you give up your unfounded belief?

I'd also suggest reading this to start and maybe this to learn a bit more about evolution.

That's true for pseudoscience or faith. For instance, Einstein stated conditions that would either prove or disprove his theories.

Numerous examples of speciation--that's the whole list of proof?!

I find it curious that creationists routinely accuse scientists of believing in evolution based on faith (a word which, in an epistemological context, I take to mean "belief without, or against, evidence or reason"). Faith is precisely the difference between science and religion; the intellectual foundations of most religions are built on faith, whereas science is completely incompatible with faith. As a matter of fact, I consider the most insulting phrase in the English language to be "You're just taking that on faith." (but I realize it's nothing personal)

In the interest of brevity, I'll simply note that at the very least your claim is grammatically correct, which is all I was really talking about.

2. Speciation is a pillar of Biblical creationism.

The link you provided is essentially a rephrased version of the argument I mentioned regarding evolution of "kinds" of animals. For instance, from the link: "...present-day species representative of the 'dog kind'" This concept of a 'kind' seems to be defined with respect to some vague idea of information content: "The creationist assumes that real, substantive increases in information (that is, specifying for an increase in what might be called 'functional complexity') will never arise without intelligent cause."

This "information theoretic" objection seems to be more common in creationist literature in recent years. I find this baffling, because there are numerous examples of mutations adding information (as defined by the standard Shannon information/entropy definition).

At this point, I'm reminded of astrology apologists. Whenever confronted with direct evidence that double-blind studies don't support their pseudo-science, most astrologers respond by making their claims vaguer- and thus less susceptible to criticism. I believe that something similar is happening in creationism. The information argument is becoming more common precisely because it's so vague that it can't be directly countered without extensive, and very technical, discussion regarding the definition of "information".

3. Many (most?) Biblical creationists are not greatly enthused by the Intelligent Design movement. Some oppose it, although not actively.

I've never heard of this before. Do you have any references? For instance, do you have a link to a web page written by a creationist who outlines the reasons he dislikes Intelligent Design? I'm curious to see why there would be a disconnect between the two groups.

Evolution defenders have moved the goalpost by using variation within species as proving the entire theory.
Where's the proof showing The Origin of Species?

1. The fossil records do not show the transitionary fossils required by the theory.

This is blatantly false. On the off chance that you aren't deliberately lying or determined to remain willfully ignorant, you can start to educate yourself here.

But Macroevolution (what most people think of as Evolution) can't been observed. Until Macroevolution can be observed it is just another religion.

What do you mean by "macroevolution"? If we take the defintion of the Wikipedia article you link to, "evolution that occurs above the level of species, over long periods of time, that leads to speciation", well then speciation has in fact been observed. And the fossil record shows how this process occurs over long periods of time.

Many of our observations are indirect, but so what?

And here's the link that explains it.

I do believe that there is in fact a scientific debate still going about evolution, because so much about evolution seems to be pure speculation.

Well, you're right to some extent, but the debate is about details, not whether evolutionary theory is valid. You seem to have a picture of evolutionary biology that is common: everybody sits around and speculates and comes up with stories. That's only part of the work. There's a lot of data to examine, and there are a lot of tests to do. Hypotheses can be tested via genetics. Predictions about fossil locations can be made and tested. It's really not nearly as arbitrary as you're making it sound, or there would be a lot more critics than there are.

Your comments on the origins of life, the universe, and everything are reasonable, but they don't really get you anywhere as a scientific model. Finding a large gap in our understanding and filling it with magic is certainly one way of going philosophically, but because the model of an omnipotent intervening force fits with any possible observation, it's not really useful as a scientific model. It doesn't give us a chance to expand our understanding about anything. I believe that the majority of scientists are still religious in one way or another. They generally don't let the supernatural creep into their work, though, as it short circuits the scientific method in much the same way dividing by zero allows you to prove all sorts of wrong things algebraically.

First of all, you mentioned dinosaurs with feathers. Assuming that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs, what advantage do dinosaurs with feathers have? Certainly they couldn't fly, and certainly natural selection is not some intelligent force that had birds in mind for the future. Also, could you give me an example of a dinosaur with feathers?

Feathers and hair are very similar in that they're useful as insulators, much as flaps of skin shaped like wings are useful for temperature regulation. Archaeopteryx is an example of a dinosaur / bird intermediate with features from both dinosaurs and birds.

It's interesting that AiG is still putting forth the bombardier beetle argument. It originated with Duane Gish, who had a completely inaccurate understanding of how the mechanism worked. From the looks of it, they've corrected the technical inacuracies and turned it into a simple argument from incredulity ("I can't imagine how this evolved, so it's not possible that evolved."). Mark Isaak proposes a possible evolutionary pathway here, and discusses some of the particulars with examples from different species. True, it may not have happened that way, but the existance of a relatively obvious set of possibilities definitely shoots down the claim that it couldn't have happened that way.

More interestingly, there is a time in the fossil record when bombardier beetles didn't exist. And a time when humans, rabbits, and all sorts of modern creatures didn't exist. At those times, other creatures did exist (dinosaurs, early sponges, etc.). Evolutionary theory explains this. Most of the various creation theories can't explain it, and instead resort to claiming that everything lived at the same time. Do you subscribe to this belief, or do you have an explanation as to how rabbits came into existence somewhere along the timeline?

As far as scientists who do not believe in evolution, I found this list online http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/def ault.asp that contains many who do not believe in it (far more than two). These are just the scientists associated with this particular organization, so I am sure that there are many more. Some of the scientists also have written articles about themselves, and about what in their research led them to reject evo