What's amazing here is that the definition I provided of abiogenesis is essentially the same as the one you provided. The only difference is that the one you provided has a lot more scientific-sounding "fluff". Nevertheless, the fact remains that:

when you boil down the faith of abiogenesis, you are believing that rocks turn into humans given enough time.

It is truly amazing that you continue to deny this, but in another respect, it makes perfect sense because:

denial is the process that enables a faith in the religion of evolution.

The same is true of your statements about molecules in space. You are laying down a piece of paper next to the Empire State Building and claiming that you've almost reached the top, and this illustration is not out of scale.

I do believe that, although some people are bedazzled by the wordage and persona of these definitions, most others are capable of seeing through the illusion and are able to make the connection that abiogenesis means that rocks turn into humans given time. Of course, if the definition were given this way, no one would believe it. It is only through a redefinition of terms combined with an emotionally-appealing wordage that you can lure people into accepting the absurd.

Take, for example, the redefinition of MSG into any of its countless names.

This is an example of purposefully creating an efficient process in order to deceive people, that is, to hide the truth from people.

Additionally, the conversion from rocks to humans is impossible without an external intelligence because there are no bonding rules to support the vastly complex processes that would be required to assemble these components into a symmetrical, self-reproducing machine of such vast complexity. In short, there is not enough intelligence within the system, not by a long, long, long shot. Only an Intelligence external to the system would be capable of this kind of assembly (remember, we're talking about process here—abiogenesis is the definition of a process).

Finally, let me provide a living example of a very deluded person at work. Perhaps people will benefit by seeing themselves in the rationale he provides.

In a lecture, Dawkins is asked to consider that complexity is the result of an external intelligence. Dawkins then spoke eloquently for about 10 minutes, but in this entire time, he really says only this:

God is less likely to exist than man because He (God) is more complex.

Yes, it took about 10 minutes to say this. Why?

Because about 9 minutes and 45 seconds of this dialog are spent "sounding intelligent". This eloquent scientific-sounding speech is appealing to the emotions, and the fact is, a faith in something so illogical as evolution requires tremendous amounts of emotionalism.

So, the rationale of redefining evolution as abiogenesis is nothing more than another intellectual retreat for evolutionists. They attempt to redefine the theory as time goes on in order to save face and keep the religion alive in the face of a reemerging common sense among people. Notice that I don't say evidence because the evidence has been known for a long time.

The bottom line here is that a search for truth will make the one searching naked in that it will revel their true nature, and in the case with Dawkins, it is the true nature of delusion which is very inefficient, that is, it requires much effort to say simple things so as to maintain an aura (illusion) of intellectualism. In short, denial is very inefficient.

Let's have the integrity to admit that any attempt to upsell abiogenesis as evolution is nothing more than an intellectual retreat. Most anyone reading will remember what they were taught in school and that it was indeed called evolution.

See for yourself:

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks