If human life evolved without any input from a higher being, then why does human life, or any life, have value?
In fact, if we are just the result of naturalistic process, then how can ANYTHING be said to be "right" or "wrong". How would the extermination of the entire human race be "wrong" if said race is just the product of purely naturalistic occurrences? If we are just the product of a chain of chemical reactions going back to a bunch of amino acids combining for the first time, then how are we different than a cock-roach? Or the fizz from baking soda and vinegar mixing?
You cannot argue for "morality" unless you argue that human beings MATTER for some reason. With naturalistic evolution, you cannot assume that we do. All atheistic arguments for the existence of morality presuppose that human beings still MATTER, that human life is still valuable. But they never answer WHY human life should have value if said human life evolved without God.
This is not an argument for or against Evolution. This is just show that IF you accept naturalistic evolution, you must accept that there is no reason to assign human life, or any other life, any particular value. Nor to believe in any sort of morality.
That's not how an "argument" works. If 90% of what someone says is wrong, one cannot conclude that the next thing he/she says is wrong. Each statement must be evaluated on it's own merits. But if we want to talk about wrong statements;
1. Christians believe the lives of non-Christians matter so much that The One True and Living God became a human and DIED for those very non-Christians.
2. Just because what we believe doesn't agree with YOUR beliefs does not make them "wrong".
3. Your third point does not follow logically, nor is it based upon anything other than your own prejudice.
Some of you admit that. Some of you admit that this ILLUSION of value is the best we can do. At least that's honest.