"The experiment does not produce these results when oxygen is present in significant quantities. However, there is strong evidence that the early atmosphere had little or no oxygen, judging from the very low oxidation of the most ancient rocks."

Of course, there is immense evidence that the early atmosphere was aerobic, not anaerobic, isn't there?

What evidence? None of the solar planets except Earth have significant oxygen in their atmospheres. The oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere was originally created by photosynthetic bacteria. The oxygen in the atmosphere rose from near zero to roughly it's present level starting about 2.5 billion years ago and leveling off about the time of the Cambrian. During this time, much of the Earth "rusted" from exposure to oxygen. Probably a very good way to identify life on planets orbitting other stars is to look for high levels of oxygen, since such a highly reactive gas is not a stable in the atmosphere unless constantly replenished.

Isn't it really more the case that the evidence that it 'was' anaerobic is highlighted and emphasized since it gives hope to the only scenarios that scientists can imagine?

SJ, I get the feeling that you believe that scientific data are imagined, rather than measured.

What's driving the view that the early atmosphere had little or no oxygen?  That there is 'low oxidation of the most ancient rocks' or 'how the h*ll are we going to explain this?????'

It's all a vast conspiracy, isn't it? Secretly, geologists, biologists, nuclear physicists, and astronomers all get together and hatch their next plot to prove Genesis wrong.

You gave a long answer that almost completely ignored my questions. I gather that you would assert that one of the criteria for determining whether a model should be presented is that it will help us find life on other planets. Are there other criteria that should be considered? Is it reasonable to consider that God created life?

Bevets, even if God existed, he might have chosen to have his universe generate life spontaneously through abiogenesis.  So abiogenesis per se is not at odds with belief that God was the original creator of the universe or that he planned to create us.  

Perhaps your concern is over whether God could have used some other method to create us--e.g. directly by miracle.  What Broken has argued convincingly is that it is reasonable to believe that life arose through abiogenesis, although the hypothesis is not yet proven from a scientific perspective.  To establish that it is reasonable to believe God used some other method, you need to produce some evidence or coherent argument to that effect.  Of course, imaginary gods can use any means that we imagine them to use.

(prior to Broken it has been mainly an argument that dissolves into "We aren't qualified to argue with the majority of scientists...").

This is a mischaracterization of a powerful argument. I think it primarily stems from a misunderstanding of a logical fallacy called the argument from authority.

Not all arguments from authority are fallacies. Some arguments from authority are or should be persuasive. For example, if ten independent cardiologists examine your heart and each of the ten comes up with the same diagnosis, this alone is NOT absolute proof that the diagnosis is correct. It could be mistaken. Same thing goes if one thousand or one million cardiologists independently come to the same conclusion.

That diagnosis can always be mistaken. It could be just a coincidence that medical science gets it right as often as it does. It could be that you've angered Athena and that she is causing the problem with your heart. (It is impossible for anyone, including science, to disprove this possibility.) It could be that you are ill for any one of a number of reasons other than for the reason that medical science says you are ill.

So while the fact that virtually the entire cardiological community agrees with the diagnosis, that in itself is not and cannot be absolute proof that you suffer from the problem that the cardiologists have diagnosed. It is, however, a VERY strong argument that from a medical science viewpoint your heart is ailing for the reason that all those cardiologists believe that it is ailing.

And that, analogically, is what we have here in the case of your argument against evolution. You are saying not simply that evolution is mistaken. You are attempting to make the argument that evolution is mistaken because virtually the entire scientific community has got the science wrong. And that's a very, very shaky premise from which to base an argument against any consensually-accepted scientific theory.

If you reject the truth of evolution then to be consistent you should reject the truth of virtually every other scientific conclusion, as well; otherwise, your argument becomes ad hoc and we should look around for other motives besides your scientific curiosity to explain your advancement of it. The fact that you are a Christian and that you believe the theory of evolution runs counter to your faith nicely does just that.

Thus, it becomes clear that the reason that you oppose evolution is not because of any scientific qualms that you may have (qualms, btw, that are easily allayed by people like Broken or by independent -- but unbiased -- study) but instead because of your theological concerns.