Here ya go.
Q1. Aren’t you using “chance” the in the exact same way that you in which you accuse Christians of using “God of the Gaps”?
A1. No. There is evidence for biology, it’s not chance, and it’s not fake.
Q2. Why should there be something, instead of nothing?
A2. This is meaningless question. I am here and I exist, so what.
Q3. Where do you get your morals from?
A3. Same place as anyone, the community standards coupled with individual reasoning
Q4. How did morals evolve?
A4. Through community interaction.
Q5. Can nature generate complex organisms, in the sense of originating it, when previously there was none?
A5. Yep.
Damn that was easy.
The Winnipeg Skeptics 
The whole thing is an argument from ignorance, anyhow—the implication being that provided a person (or science) cannot answer the question, the only explanation is a deity. This is just as absurd as claiming that if a person cannot identify the source of a particular light in the sky on a cloudy night, it must be caused by alien spacecraft.
Worse than just being an argument from ignorance, it is a burden of proof shift. I have no requirement to prove the claims of Christianity false. It is up to Christians – if they want to convince me – to provide the evidence that their claims are true. Not arguments, evidence. Even if we couldn’t answer any of these questions – we can, of course – that fact would not provide any support for the veracity of any god-existence claim.
It annoys me when the lay person uses “chance” to imply that something can’t (or shouldn’t) happen. Chance has a precise mathematical definition. Hell, we have a separate stats department at the UofM. Calling something “chance” does not diminish it in any way.
It’s like the law of large numbers. When I deal you 5 cards from a deck with 52 cards, the “chance” that you will get those 5 cards in that exact order is very very low, yet it happens.