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

As per his request, I will attempt to emply the "KISS" method and keep everything as clean and simple as possible. I'll demarkate all relevant areas of discussion by bold titles. The RulesI was to make two things clear. First, I will follow all rules that were set forth in the first round. If these rules were ambiguous, I will make my own assumptinos regarding their applicability. Second, I will not be following any rules brought up since then or any "I really meant this:" statements from the opponent. The moment I accepted this debate it became as much my debate as his, as who wins and loses will be reflected in both of our debate records. The opponent may have instigated this debate, but that does not give him the authority to create new rules or attempt to clarify old ones in a restrictive manner not aligned with common sense. My Position in this DebateThis portion of my opening statement was to provide clarity on my position to the voter's and opponent. As such, it is relevant to this debate and not "off topic". To briefly summarize the point I made: The opponent did not prescribe the specific role that Con was to be taking in this debate. In debates, Con generally plays one of two roles. Either:1. He presents a positive claim that clashes with the opponent's claim, or,2. He does not present a positive claim, instead showing the opponent's argument to be itself flawed or inconsistent. As it was not chosen for me in the guidelines, I have accepted the second of these two possible roles. I will not accept that my role was "implied" as the rules were so complete and verbose that it was not reasonable to expect that the accepting party would need to make any assumptions regarding the rules. If the opponent does not like the role I have chosen -- tough luck. Next time he can clarify exactly what he wants Con to argue, but the time for that in this debate has long passed. To be clear, my position is not in violation of any explicitly stated debate parameters set in Round 1 by the opponent. LogicI am furthermore reiterating my assumption that logic is an acceptable form of argumentation. I warn the opponent not to disagree with this, as a debate can't be had without logic. The evidence presented itself isn't even relevant if we are not allowed to make logical conclusions regarding the implications of said evidence. Without logic, nothing can ultimately be proven and this debate is meaningless. In fact, it is very difficult for human beings to even construct a sentence without using some type of explicit or implied logic. I assume this isn't an issue, but the opponent is free to correct me and live with the consequences if he so wishes. Opponent's PremisesThe opponent states that "[I] accepted the debate based on Premises, not headings. .. " which I assume is making one of two points. I'll address both. One, it's possible that the opponent means that I was supposed to accept his stated premises as true before accepting this debate. This was not clearly stated, nor is it even logically implied. The very use of the word "premise" implies the introduction of an argument to which the conclusion will later be reached. Two, it's possible that the opponent means that the resolution he provided is not what was to be discussed, which itself is a nonsensical statement. Obviously the resolution is what is to be discussed. It was not stated anywhere that we wouldn't be discussing the stated resolution, nor is that a logical implication. Opponent's CasePremise 1: Formation of Life must have been by supernatural formation as define by scripture. This is more of a conclusion then a premise. If we are to consider it a premise, then I'll point out that the opponent has provided no photographic or videographic evidence supporting this claim. Premise 2: There is no scientific way shown for life to have formed through any natural construct. Again, if we treat this as a premise then the opponent has not proven it. Rather, he is making an unfounded assumption. We know this because the opponent has not provided any photographic or videographic evidence documenting this as a fact. Premise 3: There is no scientific data of photographic evidence. .. providing realistic or possible paradigms for the formation of adult [beings]. I'll assume the opponent means the "natural formation" of adult beings. I can accept this premise as valid. However, this does not lend itself to the conclusion that "science provides scientific proof that God formed all life on Earth," which is the opponent's resolutional burden. A "lack of evidence" literally refers to the non-existence of evidence. The resolution calls for existent evidence to be presented to prove the opponent's claim. Until such time as the opponent provides photographic or videographic evidence documenting God creating life, he has failed to fulfull the evidential burden that he placed on himself in the opening round. Remember how important it is that both debaters stay within the parameters set in Round 1, so the opponent cannot be allowed an exception or deviation. The Logical ResponseThe following is a logical construction. The opponent can choose to ignore this section in its entirety if he feels it invalid or irrelevant. I have already demonstrated that FoC has not provided physical evidence of his claim, so I do not technically need to do anything else. This logical construction is being presented purely to increase the quality of the debate. The opponent's logical argument can be expressed as this:There is not evidence of not Y, therefore Y. This can be deconstructed to more easily see the fallacy this argument commits:P1: If Y has (conclusive) evidence, Y exists. [premise]P2: If Y does not have evidence, Y does not exist. [apply contrapositive]C: There is not evidence of not Y, therefore Y exists. [conclusion]The error is found in Premise 2, where the contrapositive of Premise 1 is incorrectly applied. When performing a contraposition conversion one must both negate both sides of the argument and switch them. Here, the sides are negated, but not switched. The correct contraposition of P1 is:If Y does not exist, Y does not have evidence. Realizing this logical error, one can see that the conclusion has not been met. Let's now actually "fill in" the opponent's argument so we have an even clearer picture:P1. If there is evidence life formed naturally, then life formed naturally. P2. If there is not evidence life formed naturally, then life did not form naturally. C. There is not evidence life formed naturally, therefore life did not form naturally. The opponent's logical error of incorrect contraposition occurs in P2, invalidating his conclusion. The lack of evidence for something existing is itself not proof that the "something" in question does not exist. Our inability to physically provide (photographic/videographic) evidence regarding how an animals reproductive habits can coexist with the natural formation of life is not itself proof that there is not a naturalistic explanation. The opponent and voters would do well to remember an important rule: In occasions where the number of possible explanations is unknown, a lack of proof is never itself considered proof. ConclusionI've demonstrated that the opponent has failed to uphold his resolutional burden by not providing physical evidence that God formed life. I've thrown in a "bonus track" explaining why the opponent's implicated logical argument is invalid due to incorrect contraposition. I look forward to FoC's response. [And as a note to him, you cannot simply "exit" or "withdraw" from a debate in any official capacity. Moderators will not a remove a debate simply because it is not going the way you wanted/expected. Once you're in it -- you better be in it to win it. ]