Science provides indisputable proof that God formed all Life on Earth, failing to prove otherwise

The opponent case boils down to a few simple arguments. I'll address these, reiterating some points along the way, then close. Regarding the Kritik, I will drop it for now, so long as the opponent finishes the debate. If he fails to do so, I will haven no choice but to resubmit the Kritik as an a priori voting issue. Argumentation1. Chicken vs. EggThe opponent's first argument truly boils down to the infamous "chicken or egg" argument. When considering which came first, the chicken or the egg, it is easy to find oneself in a sort of logical conundrum. The opponent sumbits that there is ony one escape from this paradox, that being Creationism. I submit that there is an alternative explanation that solves this paradox, that being evolution. Before I begin talking about that, though -- I would like to agree with the opponent that there is a definitive lack of absolute proof regarding evolution. However, the opponent's Creationism claim is equally (or moreso) unsubstantiated. His basic argument is that "evolution can't be proven, ergo Creationism" when one could just as easily say "Creationism can't be proven, ergo evolution. "As I detailed in my Round 2 logical proof, if some claim Y has a lack of supporting evidence, this does not imply that not Y is true. Most every scientific concept we believe to be true was at one point unsubstantiated. Despite this, they were as true then as they are now. Similarly, evolution can not be ruled out as true simply because there does not exist absolute evidence confirming its existence. By the same logic, neither can creationism. However, we have established that the Burden of Proof rests on the opponent's shoulders and not mine. As such, it is his obligation to show that Creationism is scientifically supported (or supported in some other way), whereas I do not share a similar obligation with regards to evolution. A Brief Discussion of EvolutionAgain, I'd like to clarify I do not have evidence supporting evolution that meets the rigorous standards of the opponent. However, I am presenting this concept as an alternative, thus showing that Creationism is not the only reasonable origin of life theory. Basically, there existed a point in which complex non-living matter met the requirements of being considered extremely simply living matter. Over time, this living matter became more complex, often times diverging along distinct paths. These paths continued to diverge. What we now call "species" are living matter that are on distinct paths. As it relates to the "chicken vs. egg" argument, the egg came first. Natural selection works as a product of mutation. Mutation occurs in the formation of a living being, meaning at some point a not-chicken (with great similarities to are-chickens) had a mutated child that was born into what we would classify as chickens. The Burden of ProofThis point is simply to reiterate that the burden of proof rests upon the opponent. This means that the opponent has an obligation to prove that "scientific evidence supports Creationism". I do not have any inherent burden of proof, since it is not my obligation to actually hold a positive position. As such, it is my hope that the opponent presents some evidence concerning origin of life in the next round. Currently, it is well evidenced how various animal reproduce. This does not shed any light on the origin of these living creatures, however. The opponent's assumption that Creationism is the only explanation for origin of life is de facto incorrect, as evolution is undoubtedly an explanation. Whether this explanation is actually correct is neither here nor there. It's mere existence confirms that the opponent indeed has a burden to prove his claim. ConclusionThis has been short, but I hope clear. I've demonstrated that the opponent's logical argument does not hold. I've demonstrated that the opponent has a clear burden of proof, since Creationism is not the only origin of life explanation. I have not demonstrated evolution to be absolutley true, as this was never the point I was trying to make. Rather, the mere existence of alternative theories means that proof must be provided before it is believed correct. I look forward to the opponent's final round.