I read the essay but only once so far, so I may have missed some things. It doesn't seem to point out any flaw in the theory but rather try to present an altern

I read the essay but only once so far, so I may have missed some things. It doesn't seem to point out any flaw in the theory but rather try to present an alternative. But this alternative I find utterly unconvincing because it is full of errors and holes. I would really like to provide critique to all those points but that would become a piece longer than the essay. If you like I will elaborate on specific points.