The Theory of Evolution Supports The Existence of a God

Thanks go to my opponent for his time, this is my first debate with less than 8,000 characters, so let's see how I do. Pro technically said that this round is for opening arguments, however the nature of the debate is such that I can only respond to arguments for the proposition. I cannot argue that evolution does NOT provide any evidence for God without addressing some sort of argument, therefore I will spend my time refuting my opponents positions. My opponent's argument is relatively simple, but unfortunately it is also a logical fallacy. Pro is utilizing an appeal to ignorance. On top of that, he's appealing to an ignorance that we simply don't suffer from, similar to but not nearly as bad as Bill O'Reilly claiming that you can't explain the tides. What my opponent has claimed is that there is no way for evolution to begin through natural processes, and that therefore some sort of divine source must be required in order to begin the process. Technically, I could point out that my opponent is not citing abiogenesis and not evolution. Pointing this out would mean that, to the exact definitions he provided for the debate, he hasn't made a single argument for his case, but I'm going to let that slide and pretend that abiogensis and evolution are the same. I mention this so that my opponent and any other viewers will understand that there is a distinction and not to confuse the two. Now I said that this is an appeal to ignorance when we in fact are not so ignorant on the matter. While it is true that we don't perfectly understand the mechanism behind abiogenesis, this is not to say we don't have a general idea of how it could occur naturally. The always wonderful potholer54 explains this quite well in the third part of his "Made Easy" series, which you should be able to view within my posting here. I submit this video as evidence that abiogensis could have begun without the intervention of any sentient being. I will quickly go over the points for those that don't wish to watch it. My opponet's argument rested on the belief that RNA would have to form randomly; which is inaccurate. All you need is a self-replicating molecule, a much more simple entity that could easily have come together through basic chemical processes of the primordial earth. Once you have that molecule, nothing afterwards is "random", but is being driven by natural selection, and through several other steps along the way, organic life is later formed. Now, while we do have that explanation and it removes any necessity to appeal to a god, much less is needed to refute my opponent. As I said, his entire argument is built upon a logical fallacy, an appeal to ignorance. His argument is "we don't know of a way this could have happened, therefore, God". This is not a good argument, as is one of the main reasons Intelligent Design overall fails. An illustration: Imagine you are with someone who has no concept of wind. For whatever reason, that concept has not yet been discovered. Outside the window they see a plastic bag floating around, seemingly at random. To them, nothing they can see is moving it, so they conclude that it must be some divine power moving it. How, without discovering the mechanism behind it, could you discern that it is in fact a natural phenomenon? Is it wise to assume that every unexplained thing is the domain of a supernatural entity? My opponent's argument only makes sense if we are to assume that the default position is always "God did it" until we completely explain everything, but I see no reason to grant this assumption, especially since that assumption has been proven wrong so many times over on so many different things long held to be impossible to explain. Unless my opponent can show that it is logically impossible for any and all self-replicating molecules to come into existence through natural chemical processes, then he has absolutely no argument to rest upon. Thanks you. http://www.youtube.com...