I’ve found more time to find flaws with your critique of evolution in post #34 so that you can no longer claim that “no one has offered anything to refute any of it”. Read the post (#211) preceding this one for the first segment.

Today, I’ll refute the ‘dilution problem’ from your three-and-a-half decade old reference (Gish 1972). He states that sufficient concentrations for abiogenesis could not occur. This would be true if the concentrations were uniform across all bodies of water. He completely ignores the natural distillation effect of evaporating water in coastal pools. From this 2004 research paper, “The early impact that produced the Moon, and fast terrestrial rotation, subjected coastal areas 3.9 Ga ago to rapid tidal flooding (dilution) and drying (concentration), with a likely periodicity in the range of 2-6 h, and could have provided a driving force for cyclic replication of early biomolecules.” The process of concentrating normally dilute particles can be observed today in salt lake formations. Also, a natural cold trap is quite possible is such an environment since shallow pools of waters have large daily changes in temperature due to solar warming during the day and cooling during the night.

As to what you call ‘incompatibility’, all I would do is reference the phenomenon of dynamic equilibrium. When you have two competing and opposite reactions, they reach a balancing point where the construction and destruction of such molecules equal out resulting in constant concentration. Dynamic equilibrium is a very basic concept in chemistry.

More critiques of post #34 to come!

Thanks for the index to the relevant posts. My guess is the reason that no one has refuted any of these points is that no one has the time to look that deeply into it. I will try to remedy this by looking through the posts you indexed and take one point at a time. It will probably take quite a long time, so if you are patient, I’ll address all that I am able to.

I’ll start with post #34: You start with a critique of the earliest stages of life. This is a certainly a safe place for you to start. This happened such a long time ago that it is tough to fully understand what occurred.

I’d like to point out that this is the problem of the origin of life, not really evolution. Notice that even if the first forms of life were designed or miraculously created, evolution could still take place. Thus casting spontaneous generation into doubt has absolutely no effect on the validity of evolution.

For this section I’ll simply point out the Denton’s “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” (published 1986) is a little out dated for the pace of molecular biology research. For more recent research on the early atmosphere, see this recent (2005) study.

You also cite Gish (circa 1972, 1984) and state, “In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence”. Well, the hydrogen atmosphere cited in the study linked above is a very reducing atmosphere. Also, form this 2004 article, “Molecular oxygen wasn’t around, indicate rocks from the era, which contain iron carbonate instead of iron oxide.”

I’ll have more critiques of post 34 later!

The proverbial horse is truly black and blue after this beating.

From here out, I think we should stop using small variations of previous posts. ;)

and from now on, I suggest we just look up there instead of restate the same with slightly different words