Replies

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.

No it isn't easy. People will believe whatever suits them. I can't change anyone's mind and neither can you. But I've presented you with a problem: How does the evolutionist account for the laws of logic, for transcendental reality, which are crucial to the pursuit of science? He obviously needs them...

Contrary to the various ad hominem's on this thread, I'm an independent thinker, not a follower. No I'm not the first to ask these questions. Rather, they are new to you because they are not dealt with in own circles.

Evolutionists also argue from a religious belief, i.e. a specific worldview, though the fallacy of pretended neutrality is quite common. Obviously the questions I've asked are philosophical in nature but I don't think you can simply shrug them off by "begging the question" by attempting to undermine my credibility based on my refusal to accept the very subject matter whose entire basis I'm challenging.