The word of God DOES trump all contradictions of course. Truly, this ought to be obvious and indisputable. God made it all, God knows what it's all about, so true science, logic and reason are on the side of God's word. Logically this is impeccable reasoning. How can you deny it?
Because it's a premise that there's no reason to accept. Thus, you should not be surprised to find that people do no accept it.
You don't simply get to present premises and expect them to be accepted in the absence of support; neither do we. A premise is the basis of an argument but it's not something that you just get to demand acceptence for, just because you presented it.
I mean, any statement can be a premise, so that'd be a pretty convinient way to short-circuit a debate, don't you think? Just present your conclusion as a premise and then claim it was beyond challenge because all premises must be accepted?
By refusing to recognize the YEC premise you do indeed demand that I accept the evo premise.
Well, hey, here's a hell of an idea. Let's each support our premises with argumentation. We could even do this over the internet, at a website that lets us post text and links in sequential form, organized by topic into "threads." Even better we could have a set of volunteers from both sides - maybe you could even be one - who agree to enforce a limited set of rules about civility and form so that the discussion stays on topic and stays civil. Maybe we could organize the site into different topics, like "Is it science?" or "Cosmology".
In the present context I am asserting it as a presupposition
You don't get to, in any context. In general, because no unchallengeable premises are allowed here, and specifically in your case because you've never succcesfully defended it. You've been proven wrong about it in every thread I've ever read.
So defend the premise. I grant you that, if your premise is correct - that indeed, the account in Genesis is intended by God to be an accurate, divinely-dictated account of what actually happened - then indeed, no disagreement with it could be coherent. That argument is valid.
But there's no reason to accept your premise, so there's no reason to accept that your argument is actually true. With an untrue premise, your argument is valid but not true.