Evolution proves that god is real

IntroductionFirst of all, I disagree with my opponent when he says that God is (typically) defined as the one who creates the universe. This is blatantly false. An example of this is the commonly used conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, being that the universe has a cause, i.e., was created. It is of course possible to stipulate the term "God" in some uncommon way for the sake of a debate, but this has to be pointed out explicitly.Argument 1: CreationPro quotes Darwin who expresses that some naturalists belief that species undergo slight changes over time and that our current species came from pre existing species but then makes a huge leap and asserts that"evolution is dependent upon an ongoing series of creation". To which I would reply: why? Why should that be the case?For this assertion to hold any ground my opponent needs to give conclusive arguments to show that genetic mutations require divine intervention, if he cannot provide them we should not accept his conclusions.Moreover I am asking myself whether Pro actually thinks of more or even all natural processes as creation. In his opening statement Pro said "Rocks change form, atoms are recycled, energy changes positions- but none of this constitutes creation." and "Creation is the act of making something new."I agree with both, however the rearranging of atoms is precisely what constitutes something new. A meteor that crashes into a planet causes many new things, just as other natural processes like mutation result in something new. If a being was to influence physical systems, like in altering a genome through mutations, we would detect a variation in energy levels of that system, but this is not the case.From this we can either conclude that:1. it is not the case that God exists or2. it is the case that God exists but he does not actually influence the processes that lead to natural selection or3. it is not the case that any physical events could happen without God, since he is responsible for all physical interactions.None of these options do my opponent any favor: 1. makes the debate redundant, since he is arguing for the existence of God.2. directly affirms my position in this debate, since evolution would not prove that God exists.3. is absurd and Occam's razor dictates that simplicity is to be preferred. By using it we would arrive at either 1. or 2.None the less I extent my point on the equivocation of my opponent's use of the term "create" (not intended as a syllogism and of course I affirm neither of those points):1) God creates the universe.2) The evolution of life is observable creation.3) God created both the universe and the evolution of life.This is an equivocation. If christians talk about the creation of the universe, they are talking about creatio ex nihilo as the doctrin demands. If we want to talk about the creation of life we are talking about creatio ex materia. For this reason it is invalid to infer the creation of life from the creation of the universe. Surely we can replace "God" with "the genesis factor", but either they are identical -which changes nothing- or they refer to different things, which outright affirms my position, since this debate is about God and nothing else.Furthermore saying that theories predict that cosmic rays induce mutations is one thing, asserting that an intelligent mind is controlling them is completely baseless. Unless Pro can present a compelling case for this we should not accept his conclusion.Argument 2: LoveFor an invalidation of Darwin's supposed comments on love on which Pro's argument relies on I would like to point readers to the section Some Last Remarks. Selection criteria (or rather "kinds of selection" is what my opponent is talking about) is a term I have never heard before, I could not find anything on and for which readers should demand a citation. Even if we draw a superficial line between the processes of natural and artificial selection, love is still no seperate mechanism.My opponent argues that my reductionism in respect to love is unnecessary, but he is missing my point. My point was that the ability to feel an emotion is rather easily explained by evolutionary pschology without divine intervention."One major function of emotions is to energize motivation. If we experience a strong positive or negative emotion, we become motivated to do something that's beneficial or to avoid something that's harmful. [...] As human brains grew and infants became needier and more vulnerable for a longer period of development, such that the father's involvement and bi-parental care became necessary, natural selection had to come up with a way to motivate men and women to stay together for as long as it took to raise a child successfully."(2)Pro states that he has presented conclusive arguments, but in fact there is not a single one. He started with the assertions that evolutionary processes require divine intervention and that love is granted to organisms by God and yet they remained only that, assertions.Never has he put forward an argument for why it is the case that divine intervention is needed or why God is needed for the feeling of love.Some Last Remarks1. The Origin of Species:My opponent starts out by quoting Darwin which is in itself questionable. Undoubtetly the theory of evolution originates form Darwin, but since his original version it has been widely altered. Hence The Origin of Species is only of use for the historically interested reader and quotes from Darwin make up for not much more than appeals to authority.Things Darwin did not know about/ did not explain in his work:- Genetics- Fossil record- Plate tectonics ("Why are there similar species on different continents?")(3)- Speciation (Darwin focused on the transition of one species ino another, not the splitting off of say humans and our ancestors)(3)2. Misinterpreting text passages:"“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”Here Darwin is stating there exist slight and ongoing modifications in a chain of organisms, which today we know to be slight variations in DNA."In this text passage Darwin lists a criterion with which his theory could be discarded, he does not explain the mechanisms of his theory.3. The Redundancy Of Darwin:If it was actually the case that evolution proves the existence of God then Darwin, a man who lived in far more conservative times, would not have rejected his faith on the grounds of his findings. This makes my opponents quotes even more futile."by such reflections as these… I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation."(3)4. InconsistencyHere I will present statements made by opponent to show that his arguments are inconsistent and appeal to ignorance."there is a raging debate about [...] and this may be the answer.""However, this flies in the face of what science entails- gathering of evidence from observation rather than relying on belief."ConclusionMy points have not been adressed, but I await compelling arguments for the next round. Right now there is no reason to accept my opponents assertions.Sources(1) http://www.smithsonianmag.com...(2) https://www.psychologytoday.com...(3) http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html