Quote
The old "argument from incredulity" dodge.

It isn't a dodge, it's a logical fallacy. Something isn't necessarily impossible just because you think it is.

Quote
Redefining life? How convincing is this? If I apply your definition of 'life' and LinearAQ's def. of 'self-replicating molecules', diamonds are alive. What kind of science is that?

I did not gather from his comments that he thinks diamonds are alive.
What is the most basic definition of life? If molecules are self-replicating, surely that's pretty basic. What is your definition of life?

Quote
Third, why should creationism be the default explanation for everything that seems improbable to someone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said it should?

Why else do creationists try so hard to convince people that evolution is a joke, an illusion, etc, if they don't think that the default explanation is creation? What other model do they suggest?

Quote
I'm immune to your mantras and chants.

You do indeed seem to be immune to listening to what I say, yes. Denial of evidence does not lead to truth however.

Quote
If there's any unaccounted-for non-circular evidence, please present it in the appropriate thread.

You also seem to be immune to any explanations of why the ToE is not circular reasoning and keep repeating your own "mantra." I'm waiting in your "Cracking Down" thread for you to explain why you think any or all of the things in your boxes do not fit with the ToE.