Apologetics is defending the faith. The Bible teaches us to defend the faith. Many apologetics sites answer the common atheist quibbles. Yet they say "not good enough."
So it should be no surprise when we say "not good enough" about abiogenesis and evolution.
Often, we must just agree to disagree.
Oh dear - still not able to get over the problems of accepting our best evidenced theory in science, Skeptic, Evolution? Really, there are better things to discuss that this theory but we can always re-visit it if you have something meaty to discuss (as distinct from claiming there are still links missing or you don't like macro-evolution that is.) Abiogenesis you must have seen is a work in progress. There are various hypotheses but no way of proving any just yet. It has to be labeled 'don't know' for now but wait and see what happens in a few year's time.
As to defending faith - which bits are you defending? Maybe the bit where god creates light but doesn't bother to create and bodies ot emit like for a couple more days? Or is it that the first day consists of day and night without the sun and moon to delineate the day and night? Then there's the Trinity which is, frankly, and extra-biblical idea. (Yes are know there are odd verses that have a trinitarian portion like the last verse of Matthew but these could well by 2nd century additions as they seem so completely out of place with the rest of the Nt. )
We all know that believing the Trinity to be true is an important part of the majority of Christian groupings, yet we know that Jesus is shown as rejecting the title Son of God in the gospels and submits to god's will and so on. There were lot 's of heresies in the first 3 centuries after Jesus and any one of them could equally have been accepted as the only non-heretical one. Don't forget that Eusibius (yes the historian and Bishop of Alexandria) was convinced that Arius was right and even thought the the Nicene Creed support his view. If he had been more influential things could have been very different. You'll know that the 'godhead' is stitched together solely by the Aristotelian term 'substance' - that very sme term that catholics use to explain that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus
at the consecration (the accidence, what we see remains the same but the substanve, what it's very being is, changes to be the parts of Christ). Now we all know that whilst Aristotle and those at Nicea knew what it meant and that it made sense, we would be hard put to it today to get anyone to take us seriously at all if we tried it out on anything other than a religious thing. Our knowledge of Physics shows us that it is nonsense.
Yet, so far as god is concerned, we have no idea - no conception of an idea - what god could be made of that is without material parts and yet has a mind and yet can issue words that can create anything. Yet some of us are happy to say that god, Jesus and the Holy ghost are made of the same substance - though come to think of it it might make sense but not how you would like it, Skeptic.
The fact is that theology has always had a problem trying to get its head around the Trinity (just see how often a sermon is preached on this topic) and it is one of the part of theology which ought, therefore, to worry Christians the most. After all, if Jesus wasn't god but was a man, represented as a part of creation, how could he be enough to die for all the sins of the world? Yet, if he is god, being sinful was never going to be much of a task so he was not going to manage to achieve enough as a man. Finally, sacrificing one part of the godhead to another part of the godhead so that the second part of the godhead could forgive sins is a really hard sell to those who start to think about it for even a short time.
So, Skeptic, this is not a 'not good enough' problem. The question of who and what is the godhead goes to the heart of Christian belief and hope of salvation and disturbingly it is not a question that is solved by saying 'it's a mystery'.