Yeh me and several billion other people are nuts. Stateing what without doubt you do not know as a fact, is meaningless and reveals a bias.
Actually, it suggests that humans can reason that murder, theft, rape, oppression are not acts they would want committed on them, hence they shouldn't commit them on others.
It seems any position whatsoever is proof evolution develops morals and the bible can't. I said there is a common concience given by God and you said there isn't and that proves your point. I said it again in a more detailed way now you seem to accept it but say that it is evidence of evolutionary morals. Your faith is more rabid than the taliban. No matter the facts, even when they are two diametrically opposed ones, they always prove your point. How convenient. There is no escape from this fact, the best evolution can do is produce widely varying opinions none of which are more valid than the other. That is why God had to be appealed to, to justify inalienable rights.
It has nothing to do with how far back the bible goes, it's all about how accurate it is based on "oral tradition"
You do realize that the Hebrews had an entire class of people who did nothing but study and memorize oral tradition. A failure on their part was punishable by death. Accurate transmission was extremely important to those people. Regardless even if inaccurate that would only effect the first five book out of 66. The core doctrine would be unaffected.
Do the top three religions believe in the very same god that exhibits exactly the same characteristics? Of course not.
I really wish when you feel cornered you wouldn't make up a position that I never claimed and have actually stated as not my position to enable a counter point. I never said they are identicle, I said they have similar cores. For ex.... Murder, theft, rape, lieing, adultery, etc... are universally condemned.
I have heard that from many believers, but I don't buy it. Accepting that one has been indoctrinated into their religion is not something believers will admit.
This is my point. You have no information to base a decision on yet you choose the one that allows you to reject God. By doing so you are making a meaningless decision based on a faulty, biased premise.
Then, I don't believe you when you say you've studied evolution. Math degrees have nothing to do with understanding evolution.
Believe whatever you want to believe in order to maintain the illusion (you will anyway). As far as just mathematics is concerned Fred Hoyle might be suprised by the idea that mathematics doesn't apply to evolution, since he wrote a book on that very subject.
Mathematics of Evolution. (Fred Hoyle).
The Philosophical Implications of Mathematics: June 2005
Evolutionary Game Theory And The Mathematics Of Altruism
Amazon.com: 'Mathematics of Evolution' (9780966993400): Fred Hoyle: Books
New mathematics research proves there's plenty of time for evolution
All these are links that make it clear mathematics is very applicable in fact indespensable to the study of evolution. Since by not knowing that I must conclude you really don't have a grasp on it then I do not wish to discuss the subject of evolution any further except its application to morality. It is a precarious theory anyway without a bunch of innacurate claims. Besides that it is boring.