Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

Just for background information, I am an evolutionist, Also an atheist (no surprise). I am 24 years old and thirsty for a debate. If morality is so absolute like you claim it is. Then why do we have different standards of morality? Going back to Hitler, You say that it was his chosen standard that caused him to commit massacre, But did you ever realize that by claiming that it was his moral standard to commit massacre must mean that morality is actually subjective? If morality is absolute, Then you would have to say that Hitler acted not by his moral standard, But by something else. What else is it that made Hitler believe that the massacre was moral? And if he didn't believe it was moral, Then why did he do it? If anybody asked you if Hitler's actions was wrong, You would clearly say yes (anyone would), But if Hitler was asked the same question, Do you think Hitler would have said no? If you believe that he would say no, Then the debate is over since that would mean you have switched sides (since you would have to agree that Hitler has a different moral standard than us). If you believe he would have said yes, Then this begs the question: If Hitler knew it was wrong to commit such an atrocity, Then why did he do it? And if you can find an explanation that you think would make Hitler feel like it was a justifiable act, Then you can't use Hitler as part of your argument against subjective morality (since his actions were not based on his standard of morality). But good news for you! (well. . Not really). Our sense of morality is more complicated than just pure instinct. It is also affected by our beliefs as well. In other words, It can be taught. We all accept that murder and massacre is generally wrong and so is rape, But to what extent we justify those things to be acceptable in certain conditions depends on each person and that's what makes morality subjective. For example, Back in the day people were taught that slaves were ok and it is morally ok to abuse them if they wanted to, As long as they could walk on the third day. So this also begs the question: If Hitler can somehow justify the actions he made (so just pretend that he can justify his actions), Then wouldn't that make it moral? Well no, I mean yes. . . Oh I mean no. I mean. Nah I'm just playing. If I just said yes or no that would imply objectiveness. Of course, The general consensus is that murder and rape is wrong, But why you might ask. If morality is subjective, Then why do we all follow the same moral standards that have been given to us by birth? Now you claim that we follow the biblical concept of what is right and wrong (murder is wrong, Rape is wrong, Etc. ), But what you fail to mention is that out sense of morality came way before your biblical creation story was ever created. It is the humans that created the bible. Of course you would probably disagree since you believe in creation, But to accept the biblical creation story is to ignore massive amounts of scientific discoveries and knowledge that has been attained from hundreds of years of extensive scientific research by thousands and thousands of scientists worldwide. The reason why our moral standards are so close is because of evolution. It is evolution that molded our sense of morality. If you look at how we evolved this makes total sense. I know earlier you said "if the concepts of right and wrong are to be meaningful, Evolution cannot be true". This makes no sense to any degree. This is equivalent to saying if love is to be meaningful, Then evolution cannot be true, Or saying if consciousness is to be meaningful, Then evolution cannot be true. What makes something meaningful is also subjective. What's meaningful to me may be meaningless to another. If you meet a girl but she is not your type then she is not that meaningful to you, But to another person that girl may be the love of his life, That girl's life then becomes meaningful (to him). Meaning exists in our heads. You may think that if evolution is true then we are meaningless bodies of meat and bones, But this could not be farther from the truth. Notice that not one time I had to include God into her life. I didn't need to. Meaning can still exist without the existence of a God. We don't need God to feel meaning in our lives. Going back to Hitler. . . Because why not? Earlier I said if Hitler could justify his actions, Then would that make it moral? If you believe that it does from a position of moral absolutes, Then the debate is over. Since there would be a contradiction in our moralities proving morality is subjective and not objective. But let's say you still believe that it doesn't (which I would expect), Because in your position, Murder is wrong, PERIOD. You can't justify murder because it's just plain wrong and in under no circumstance is it moral to commit such an atrocity. Well, In under that position, You are still defeated. Let me explain. If you look in the bible, God commands the Israelites to literally slaughter every single man, Women, Child, And babies of the Midianites and then to rape any virgins that's left for themselves. God justified this horrendous act. To believe that murder is not justifiable in any circumstance is a contradiction to the biblical teachings of the bible. You are now at a dead end. There is nowhere you can run. You are defeated. If you haven't already (which I'm sure you haven't), Look up "The Future of Morality" by Darkmatter2525 on youtube. This glorious 15 minute video will point out this exact problem and also to help you better see my position. You use the bible as a resource for this debate as a reference for what is good morality, But what you don't know is that the bible is actually the purest form of evil. The most horrendous actions that have ever occurred in the history of mankind has been committed by God, Not Satan. Now let's talk about evolution for a minute. I want to address the part when you said that when evolutionists talk about morality as if it is a real standard that other people should follow, They are being inconsistent with their own professed worldview. Not exactly, When someone saids you should do this or that, In moral standpoint, They are teaching you what is acceptable to today's society. What's considered immoral today may have been moral back then. Take slaves for example, Slaves are not accepted anymore due to the realization that slaves have emotions and feelings just like everyone else. In other words, They were sympathetic to them. Back then, Slaves were barely even seen as people, More like objects. If you traveled back then you would have heard a different story about people in regards to keeping slaves. Abraham Lincoln, Who is known as a very kind man, Supported the use of slaves. As we lived on our brains evolve and that probably helped slaves become free in the long term. Our brains are actually evolving at an ever increasing rate. I would say that the people who have a higher level of sympathy towards others have better standards of morality.