[Lexinom]

Actually the rest of the post utterly obliterates Darwinism, since it challenges the basis for its presuppositions and exposes it for the absurdity that it is.

[Dante Alighieri]

You're attacking a scientific theory on philosophical terms? Great, evolution must be false now. Your premise is fallacious for several reasons: A) You haven't even given and probably won't be able to give evidence that it's correct.

B) Truth in the sense of mathematical truth, forever truth, etc, etc, is non-existent in science. This is what precisely keeps science open to change.

C) Your premise seems like an odd variation of the contingency argument, which is fallacious on its own.

D) Philosophical notions don't falsify scientific theories. You have to have, I don't know, actual *evidence.*

[Coyoteman]

I've refuted Darwinism countless times by undermining its requisite presuppositions: one cannot begin without presupposing God because one is then faced with the absurdity of assuming transcendental truth stands on its own. Truths like the Pythagorean Theorem stand on their own. They are, as it were, the great "I AM"...

Actually the rest of the post [above] utterly obliterates Darwinism, since it challenges the basis for its presuppositions and exposes it for the absurdity that it is.

If it was that easy, the Nobel prize committee would be banging on your door.

Why do you think that, in one sentence, you as a layman/laywoman can demolish several hundred years of science and 150+ years of evolutionary science? Do you really think scientists are that dumb, or that shallow?

I have to think that you are arguing from a religious belief, rather than a scientific background. I am sorry to have to break this to you, but religious belief does not constitute a scientific argument.