The Atheist's problem with females.
Linkity

Article synopsis: The author restates his earlier argument, and inability to comprehend basic evolutionary theory, by claiming that females evolved independently of males in any specific species. He asks "Why did all these animals evolve females?" He asserts that the ideas of creationism and evolution are similar in that they are miraculous and require faith to believe in. He then goes on to talk about the moral pejorative his god gives humanity and makes the claim that atheists support evolution because they do not want to behave morally. He ends his post with his own allusion to Pascal's wager.

We have already looked at the argument about females within a species but, for the sake of education, let's look at the other relevant question. "Why do species evolve genders?" The short answer is because it is conducive to survival to do so. An example of an advantage of genders (which is ultimately the advantage of sexual reproduction) is the variety of genetic material that becomes available to a population. If a population is able to mix its genetic heritage, then it becomes more resistant to certain types of organisms that may become specialised at attacking specific genetic sequences. It is able to do this because its genetic sequences change from generation to generation. Genetic variation also allows a species to be more responsive to other changes in its environment. http://WWW.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10511578?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Addressing the claim that evolution and creationism require faith and are both the product of a miracle, one only has to point out the obvious. Evolution has hundreds of years of empirical, physical evidence. Its predictions are vindicated in the practices of biology and medicine. Its predictions are fulfilled in the study of taxonomy, geology, palaeontology, embryology, genetics and molecular biology. It has been observed not only in the laboratory but in the geological record as well. It is based on the scientific method, a process which not only requires NO faith, it demands that faith does not enter into the equation at all. Every thing it has to offer is subjected to peer review, is constantly scrutinized by the scientific community for any error and has stood that test for the better part of two hundred years. Compare that to the idea of creationism which is not supported by any evidence, often has to deny science, and cannot stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. It is evident that only one of these ideas requires any faith and it clear which idea that is.

The moral argument is a poor one. The idea that god and the threat of eternal punishment are required for morality to exist is, I must admit, depressing to me. If you require the constant threat of brutal torture to compel you to behave morally then perhaps you should re-examine your moral code. There are other (I would argue; better) ways to derive your morality. Morality from sympathy for instance. (I don't want to have bad things happen to me so I won't do bad things to others.) The idea that an atheist only wants to deny god because he wants to act immorally is just silly. There are plenty of examples of religious people acting immorally by their own standards and atheistic people acting morally.
As for Pascal's wager, the severity of punishment for the adoption of an incorrect position on any specific theory does not validate or invalidate that theory. In other words, let's prove that our god exists before we propagate his cosmic threat of violence.

An instance of evolution observed in the laboratory. (Its a PDF)
An instance of evolution observed in the geological record