Evolutionary Atheists have no moral platform, beyond biological continuation and reproduction

If god were real then, with certainty, I could make a truth claim about the morality or immorality of any action, killing for instance. I could say, "according to god, killing is wrong". However, being that no god exists, nothing can be considered as truely right or wrong, Being that I am an Evolutionary Atheist (EVA) and can see the effects of evolution, the only view point which enables me to make truth claims about certain actions is based on the 'purpose' of evolution, which I have detailed in the last round. Other than that though, EVAs have no basis to make truth claims concerning moralit, and that is what this debate comes down to...... Is child molestation wrong? Why or why not? The answer is based off of your moral platform. An EVA could make an argument for or against it depending on the situation and circumstances, but someone who believes in a subjective morality could not, that is because a subjective morality is not a morality at all. Here is why....The law of non contradiction states: "A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. And nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth." As applied to this debate topic, an action cannot be morally right and morally wrong at the same time, this moral changing under the same circumstances means that it would have to be the result of a subjective moral platform. Thus a subjective moral platform is not really a moral platform at all because it contradicts itself. The animal evidence that Interloped brings up last round indicates that morality is inherent in animals as we can see by their percieved moral actions. This implys that morality is already in every human when they are born and thus that morality is nothing but an opinion and a perception. Opinions and perceptions can and do change and differ, even when percieving the same circumstances and thus the morality that Interloped suggests is a moral platform in his societal consesus and animal examples, is/are not one(s) at all. This means he still hasnt justified any morality besides evolutionary gain which isnt unjustifiable/subjective.The reason that evolution is the only justifiable moral platform is that it is the only non-subjective platform. It is the only non-subjective platform because in an EVA world, the only thing that assigns meaning to life, is evolution. Thus any attempts to have a moral platform other than evolution wouldnt really be moral platforms at all and would certainly not be logically justified.ConclusionIn a slightly less drawn out manner here is my completed, indepth argument:1.) A moral platform is a system of determining right and wrong2.) Logically, two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time3.) Any proposition supposing two antithetical propostions are true at the same time is illogical4.) Whether something is morally right or wrong is a proposition5.) Something cannot be simultaneously right and wrong and still be logical justifiable6.) no valid moral platform can support that an action is morally wrong and right7.) Interloped suggests that morality is inherent and also based solely on the perceptions of the individual8.) This allows for two or more people to percieve and thus make something right and wrong at the same time9.) that contradicts itself and is thus illogical and not a moral platformAnd secondly, stemming from the conclusion that no moral platform can contradict itself:1.) No moral platform can contradict itself simulatneously 2.) A moral platform is a system of determining right and wrong3.) A moral platform's system is based off of a given purpose that is assigned to life (god, evolution)4.) In an EVAs perspective, the only thing that assigns a purpose to life is evolution 5.) Only evolution can be used as a valid and logical moral platform