Intelligent Agency is the best explanation for the origin of life in this universe

I appreciate joepalcsak for his remarks towards embracing the truth rather than protecting a worldview. However, it seems we have a very different methodology for discovering these truths. I will support my case below with rigorous scientific studies based on solid evidence (as well as some probability inferences) but my opponent has not laid even one piece of evidence on the table. What my opponent has done is make a fairly vague (even with definitions) and weak two premise argument that is supposed to show why intelligent agency is the best explanation for the origin of life. The main problem with his argument is that there is absolutely no evidence to back it up. There are also definitions written by my opponent which aren’t used at all in his argument, I hope he can connect those dots for me and the audience in the next round. Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. In this round I will show the mounds of evidence supporting abiogenesis which on it's own is an argument against creation from some "intelligent agency." Probabilities and Rationality: If the chances of abiogenesis occurring in any one habitable planet in our universe was one in a hundred million, it would be not only probable but extremely likely. Estimates predict that the number of habitable planets in the milky way alone is 100 billion, while the total in our entire universe is 50 sextillion [1. http://www.extremetech.com...]. When we consider the probabilities of abiogenesis taking place anywhere on a habitable planet in our universe then even a one in a hundred million chance would result in 500,000,000,000 (five hundred trillion) instances. Therefore, even an extremely low probability of abiogenesis taking place in any one habitable planet could result in highly frequent instances as the universe is unimaginably vast. However, I hope my opponent can agree that finding out an accurate probability of these types of events are ridiculous as there are many different theories regarding abiogenesis and none of them can be quantified precisely. The core of the errors in the probability calculations is a failure to assume that life evolved in steps, with each step governed by physical laws. For example, calculate the probability of a snowflake forming. If one supposes that each of the illions of water molecules randomly arrives at its position in a six-pointed snowflake, then there is no chance of a single snowflake forming in the history of the universe. In fact, snowflakes form as a consequence of rules that are part of the properties of water molecules. The probability is correctly calculated only from an understanding of the governing laws and the process. For these reasons, I will be discussing the evidence, tests, hypotheses, and theories instead of probabilities to support the justification and rationality of believing in abiogenesis as the primary source of life. Theories and Supporting Evidence of Abiogenesis: There is no one “standard” model of the origin of life. Many accepted models draw from the outline described under the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. This hypothesis postulates a reduced atmosphere when life began around 3.5 billion years ago. One of the main sources I will be using comes from the Wikipedia page for abiogenesis which contains around 176 different scientific references and several relevant hypotheses/theories [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis poses that the early Earth’s atmosphere was chemically reducing and primarily consisted of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) orcarbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent. In this atmosphere electrical activity, impact shocks, and ultraviolet light has the potential to catalyze the creation of the basic molecules (and monomers) of life. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that this is possible under simulated conditions of the early earth [3. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. It confirmed the hypothesis that our Earth favored the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic compounds. The experiment produces over 20 different amino acids all of which are seen naturally in living organisms to this day. It must also be noted that even if our Earth didn’t synthesize organic compounds (evidence says it does and that it is a highly favored reaction) many organic compounds may have come to earth via meteorites. Over 27,000 of these types of meteorites called chondrites [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...] have already been discovered and many are shown to be rich with organic molecules. One specific example is a very popular chondrite known as the Murchison meteorite [5. http://en.wikipedia.org...]; it has been thoroughly researched and shown to contain organic compounds. Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions early Earth conditions. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and peptides could then form proteinoid microspheres which have multiple properties that are similar to cells. The microspheres are able to asexually divide via binary fission, could form junctions with other microspheres, and developed a double membrane corresponding to that of a cell [6. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. The RNA world hypothesis says that the polymerization of nucleotides into RNA may be the result of self-replicating ribozymes [7. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity may have resulted in ribozymes which catalysepeptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosomemay have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis. Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information. Expert opinion says abiogenesis is inevitable: Forty of the top scientists studying abiogenesis have collaborated on a book Origins, Abiogenesis and the Search for Life in the Universe, Michael Russell, etc... They conclude that abiogenesis is not merely likely, but inevitable. It seems all but impossible for abiogenesis to not occur in someplace at sometime it is all just a consequence of chemistry. Concluding Remarks: Clearly there are many possible explanations from the origin of organic monomers, and polymers, leading to the modern evolution of the cell. The very limited list of hypotheses I posted above show one possible route leading to abiogenesis, for a full comprehensive list of possible routes to abiogenesis I would like to refer you to my previously sourced page referenced as #2. From a purely rational standpoint, we know that life is made of strictly chemicals and that chemicals have been on the Earth for quite a long period of time. It is therefore much more elegant and reasonable on these grounds alone to posit some form of abiogenesis. Science has explained quite well many plausible naturalistic explanations which have tons of evidence to back them up and are much more reasonable (and probable) than any type of intelligent agency. Because I am nearly out of characters, I will point out the flaws in my opponent's argument in detail in the next round. I thank joepalcsak for the debate and I am looking forward to his remarks.