You didn't demolish my point, I just have no more patience to argue with you anymore. You're insulting and abrasive.

It's not about stading the heat, it's about respect, and you don't grasp the concept.

As for abiogenesis being fact, that is the funniest thing I've ever heard. You can keep telling yourself that it's real, but the facts are not on your side. I can't be arsed to bring them to you, but most people who are not of my faith appreciate the counterpoint. I'm not offering it to you because I'm not interested to argue with you anymore.

Right.

Respect is earned, you've not earned it.

Never said abiogenesis was fact, it's a theory agreed upon by most of the scientific community. I offered examples of why it is the consensus (Miller-Urey for example).

I've asked for your counter-point several times now and I can only surmise that you haven't one that can be substantiated. Continue being blatantly ignorant, I really don't care.

I really don't think religion deserves or commands any respect. I genuinely don't. People, yes. But religion - not at all.

You didn't care since the beginning, why should you now?

If I bring you a counter point, you will not respect me anyways. If I bring it to you, maybe you might. But I've already pretty much destroyed your argument for existence given a shoddy definition based on basically nothing valuable, and here I am needing to earn your respect?

No thanks.

Anyways: http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/probability.htm

The horrible logic of this article should show you that we're here thanks to good fortune. Anyways, the bottom line is that I don't know enough, and given what you've shown this far you don't either, so I prefer not to talk to you and just keep reading. You're not the kind of person who can accept my challenges to your thoughts and/or help me better understand what's true and what of my misconceptions are incorrect.

Long story short, I don't want to talk to you.

Yes, if you provide some credibility for your argument you earn respect. Otherwise, you don't. It's really quite simple.

In regard to existence, nope. Again, can't use a different definition than agreed upon. I've explained this to you over some 6 pages. If you haven't figured it out by now, you're hopeless.

You cited an article that does not support your claim at all. Interesting.

I've cited sources backing up my claim, that's from where I derive my knowledge. So, stating that I don't understand is not only false, but incredibly obtuse to reality. 

I won't accept "I believe, I feel, The Bible says so" - I want evidence. If you have none, leave. 

people who are debating religion are debating about who has the better invisible friend, thats why i am atheist.

@underlined. Yes, that's because I'm not biased. I use my reason to lead me, not my predisposition to one side or another. Enjoy your ban. :)

I said support your claim or leave. 

What's difficult to understand about that? You still have failed to provide any evidence to support your claim. Only to attack mine, which is supported via countless sources which I have provided to you.

My ban had nothing to do with you unless you watch all my posts, which would be flattering and creepy.

What part of my claim do you want me to support?
It's always the same rhetoric though, aren't you tired of saying "which is supported via countless sources"? I mean, they could all be wrong too you know.

I leave that up to you.

Of course they could be wrong, that isn't an argument. I've made claims backed up by research, which lends credence to my statements. You've done nothing other that to attack sources while providing nothing to substantiate your own claim.