The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this statement, which ultimately boils down to a requirement for you to prove the non-existence of God. Failing that, you are required to acknowledge that religious morality could be absolute if its precepts were based on revelation from a real and existent God. Your comments on this thread are tantamount to a claim that God does not exist, which leads directly to logical necessity for you to accept the validity of some rather ugly relativist morality.
I'm not going to bring evolution into this, and it's a bad example, because it is an attempt to describe a biological process, not relationships between humans.
You're tap-dancing. You've been demanding arguments based solely on scientific principles. So I've been applying your demands to the simple problem of morality. If I say might makes right is a morally valid approach to life, and I can back up the claim by pointing out the scientifically verifiable proof, as embodied by the theory of evolution, you would argue against this because....?
I'm guessing you brought it up, out of an itch to change to topic to something you feel more comfortable debating. I'm not interested.
Not at all. I brought it up to demonstrate the logical implications of what you're saying on this thread. The fact that you don't like those implications is cause for hope, because it may yet lead you to an honest assessment of your motives for saying the things you're saying.