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

I'm sure it will be both enlightening and intriguing. In an attempt to follow the rules, I will not be providing any evidence that is not photographic and/or video. However, I will occasionally make arguments based purely in logic. I assume that is ok, considering the opponent has made a logical argument in their opening argument. (This can be found in his list of premises that he is upholding for this round. )Statement of PositionI would like to state for the record that I am taking the Con side and the opponent is taking the Pro side. This coincides with the fact that the opponent is making an objective claim about the world we live in. As such, the burden of proof currently rests with the opponent in upholding his claim. It is my job in this debate to insure that the opponent fails to objectively demonstrate the veracity of his claim. I'll note that the rules presented by the opponent cannot be considered as working "only one way", in that he is restricted to visual proofs and logical arguments alone, just as I am. I am personally not making any claims, except that the opponent cannot uphold his own, and the claims that help support that idea. This is acceptable in any debate in which one side makes a positive claim regarding the existence of some object, entity or fact. Response To Opponent's ArgumentThe opponent has made many claims in his opening argument. I will only address those which are either a) logical arguments or b) physical proofs. I am disregarding the others as they are a clear violation of the rules. We see that the opponent has provided a multitude of physical proofs concerning the life cycle of many types of animals, specifically as it pertains to reproduction. I accept these as true. The opponent then claims that these biological facts imply that "God formed all life on Earth". Unforunately, the argument is not yet solid enough to be considered valid. Based upon the physical proofs provided we know that life certainly exists and we know how it reproduces. Unfortunately, the knowledge of this gives no clear indication of how the life started in the first place. While both sides could speculate as to the cause in question, without physical evidence that it outside of the realms of this debate. I ask that the opponent provide physical evidence that life was created by God. This can be in the form of photographic evidence -- such as a picture of God creating life or a video evidence, such as that of God forming the animals or humans. The difficulty in obtaining evidence of this nature is not my problem, as I did not go into a debate and choose to limit which evidence I can use. I trust that my opponent accepts that he has to provide physical evidence to proof his objective claim. A Brief Note on Debate TheoryI'd like to crystalize for the opponent exactly what my position in this debate is. While most people assume that debates involve two parties, each arguing clashing and objective claims, this is not always the case. In many debates, there is only one side making objective claims and the other side exists purely to show that the opponent's objective claim is not sound. Since the opponent did not explicitly state that Con needed to uphold and defend an objective claim, I have assumed the role of the latter type of debater mentioned above. Ie, I will be attempting to demonstrate that the opponent's objective claim is not adequately defended to be considered true, though I myself will not be making a positive claim. (A positive claim is claiming that something is the case. This can be in the form of "X exists. .. ", "Y implies this. .. " or "Z is the case such that. .. " [The opponent is making a positive claim, which can be seen by "Science provides indisputable evidence. .. " in the resolution. ]In summary, I am not making a positive claim in this debate. I am not arguing that "physical proof exists that shows how life originated". I am arguing that the opponent's argument that "physical proof exists showing God created all life" is not valid. If this is not what the opponent expected, I can only apologize. My position is well understood within the confines of argumentation theory and is a critical analysis tool in determining the validity of someone's claims. ConclusionAs it stands, the opponent has not provided "indisputable scientific proof that God created life". He has demonstrated that life exists and that it reproduces, but no physical evidence has been presented that proves that God is responsible for the creation of this life. I have clarified my position in this debate as being one that attempts to prove the opponent cannot affirm his position. I have also confirmed for the voters that I will not be making any positive claims of existence in this debate. I look forward to the opponent's response.