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

I'll be hitting the opponent's response as provided, using "quote-response" structure. I believe such a structure will provide final round clarity and still be below the character limit. Chicken vs egg is an unfortunate . .. Because of this only factual alternaties can be seriously considered. If we accept this to be true, then neither my opponent's "explanation" or mine can be considered as explanations. As I stated, I would not be attempting to prove evolution to be true, meaning I do not have an evidenced claim. Likewise, the opponent presents a claim without evidence (the reproduction evidence is only tangentially related to his main claim, that God created life. As such, it is not evidence of God creating life. )If the opponent truly wishes to continue claiming that only well-evidenced facts can be admitted, then his argument utterly fails as he has not evidenced it sufficiently. At this point, we are left with the opponent's assertion that God created life. While I have absolutely no doubt that his believes this to be fundementally true and non-needing of evidence -- this is a debate and evidence is required when making a positive claim. This is even more true when you claim in the resolution that you can use science to demonstrate your claim. "[stuff about Creationism]"I agree that Creationism is a possible explanation for the origin of life. The problem is that the opponent has failed to prove this or even provide enough evidence such that it is implied. ". .. this is the reason why all living organisms tyupe and keep possess DNA strands so close to each other yet so vastly different in species. . .. All possess the same DNA patterns as humans differing only in bands and codes. .. "It is true that many animals share similar DNA structures. The theory of evolution, in which a single species first existed, with minor mutations over time leading to different species, adequately explains this. One could just as easily argue that DNA similarities actually imply evolution, since it harkens to the idea that we all share a common ancestor. As such, the nature of DNA no more implies God then it does evolution. "[Creationism] remains plausible, logical and intellectually sound. .. "Agreed, to some extent. However, FoC needs to not only prove that creationism is a sound idea, but also that it is true. "Evolution: . .. No physical evidence of creation in a single animal, mammal, . .. If no physical evidence can be provided evolution not only cannot be considered and alternate method, but must be excluded from any genuine consideration. "This is a fantastic point, except there is plenty of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Does any of it live up to Pro's evidential expectations? No. Does anything Pro has provided attempting to prove God created life live up to his own evidential expectations? No. If we are to disqualify an idea from consideration because it does not meet the specific requirements offered by the opponent, then "God created life" should also be disqualified. After all, the only thing the opponent proved is that animals exist and that they reproduce. This hardly implicates that God is the creator of this life. Regarding evidence that meets scientific standards, there is a plethora of it supporting the idea of evolution. We know natural selection (uber short term evolution) occurs and we've found plenty of examples of remains that fit the description of "transition species". We furthermore know that life existed on Earth at a time when it could not have supported humans, implying that they didn't exist at the time. "to refuse the only plausible explanation. .. [is bad]"Agreed. However, I have demonstrated that evolution is a plausible alternative explanation. If we limit plausible explanations to that of photographs and videos, then there does not exist an explanation at all, since no evidence has been found at this level showing that God created life. As I warned the opponent earlier, putting the opponent in a "box" so that they cannot provide existing evidence of evolution also puts himself in a box, since there does not exist evidence for God's creation (at this level of evidence. )". .. eggs are required for offspring. .. "Like I mentioned last round, evolution provides a "solution" to the chicken/egg paradox just as Creationism does. In Creationism, the adult animals appeared at God's will. In Evolution, new species arise from different, but exceedingly similar, species of animals due to mutations during formation in the egg/seed/womb. A Note on Scientific StandardsI want to make it absolutely clear to the voters and the opponent that the opponent's "standard of evidence" is much more limiting that what is considered the scientific standard of evidence. Scientific rigor has been used long before the age of photography. The proofs science uses can range from experiments to math to repeated observations of naturally occurring events. Most of these are documented in "reports" that the opponent has such disdain for. Scientists understand that proof goes well beyond photography and that photography itself is not proof. Based upon current standards of scientific rigor, evolution is considered a well-evidenced, but unproven theory. Any person in the field of science understands that what the opponent is asking for is not "scientific evidence" but rather "pretty pictures". I'd ask that FoC studies a bit on what "evidence" is and the multiple forms it can take. The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is ridiculously long, incredibly complicated, and utterly unintelligible to the average person. Despite this, it is considered an absolute proof because it meets a certain standard of proof. Complicated ideas like evolution are not easy to fully grasp and understand, but that doesn't mean you can simply say "give me something easier, like pictures" and completely deny these theories if said images don't surface. The more intellectually honest course of action is read rather than deny. ConclusionI have demonstrated that the opponent has not met his burden of proof, since he has failed to provide any photographic/videographic evidence of god creating life. I have demonstrated that his single quasi-logical "chicken/egg" argument does not prove that God created life. I finally dispelled his false claim that "Creationism is the only realistic explanation" by providing an alternative explanation that is well-evidenced. Given that this is the case, the opponent has clearly lost the debate.