Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

I'll start off by saying that morality is the most trivial problem in the evolutionary worldview. Atgument #12 reasons why evolution provides the best explanation for morality. 1. The evolution theory's assumption is intuitive and only involve testifiable axioms. 2. All moral phenomenon can be explained via evolution. Defense of 1st claim. The only assumption of evolution is "over time, A population will be increasingly dominated with characteristics that increases its survival rate. " Not only this assumption is intuitive, It is well-tested through biological populations. From this trivial assumption, One can answer all sort of questions about why morality evolve to be the way it is today. On the contrary, Religion's claim are not at all testifiable. To confirm evolution, One only need a bio lab. To confirm religion is a much harder because religion never makes any verifiable predictions. For example how may I verify that "god exists" or "morality is absolute". As you see, Theist never provide criteria to verify if those things are true. An unverifiable statement is always garbage. For insteancee, I can claim that there is an undetectable ghost flying over your head right now. Is that claim verifiable? No. By definition the ghost is undetectable. as you see, As long as a claim is unverfiable, Pp will not give it a serious thought. Defense of 2nd claimPro's initial post seemed to rest on the idea that without biblical command, There would be no reason not to kill. 2 response. a. There are 5000 religions on this planet and Christianity is not the only religion that abhors murder. b. Evolution can explain why murder is wrong. Take 2 societies A and B. Society A promotes murder while society B prohibits it. Since society A thinks of murder as the righteous act, Many members in A would commit it. The world is always full of inevitable conflicts and therefore society A population would rapidly drop since everyday conflict has an easy resolution. Kill stimulates more kills. Soon, People would start murder for revenge of loved one. This cycle of hatred would increasingly dominate until society A goes extinct. As you can see, Killing is a characteristic that drop a society population to 0. By the first assumption of evolution, The number of societies that allow murder would decrease to low number. A murder-tolerating society is analogous to a auto-immune body. and evidently, the individual who has auto-immune is extremely rare because auto-immune drops survival rate and by the axiom of evolution, Such trait would not dominate. Argument #2 :Pro seems to fixate on the fact that morality wouldn't be absolute because human's personal moral ideals are too different from each other. If this is true then religion wouldn't be a reliable source of morality either because there are about 5000 religions on the world and each with its own moral ideal. Its like 5000 people, Each with his own moral standard, How can we decide morality in that case? Responses to Pro1. "Morality is just relative. "=== True in the sense that people have different idea of right and wrong. But the fact that everyone has a different moral ideal doesn't mean that everyone's moral ideal should be treated equally. 2. "This kind of thinking is arbitraryand will lead to absurd consequences. If everyone can create hisor her own morality, Then no one could argue that what other people dois actually wrong since other people can also invent their own personalmoral code. For example, A person might choose for himself a moralcode in which murder is perfectly acceptable. "== Be sure to distinguish between "moral ideal" and "morality". Moral ideal is a person idea of what morality should be like. Morality is a consensus between humans of how we should behave. As you can see, Psychopaths have their own moral ideal where murder is perfectly acceptable. Did that fact alter our moral consensus in anyway? No. Not even one tiny bit. 3. "But how could we argue that it is wrong for others to murderif morality is nothing but a personal standard? " === We don't allow murder because if we did, We wouldn't even exist to ask the question. A murder-tolerant society is like a self-referential contradiction. HOw can something that wants to annihilate itself exist?