A fatal logical flaw in creationism?

I am curious why admin leaves this in ID space. A fatal flaw in creationism is of no real concern to proper ID as the two are intrinsically incompatable.(Not that ID is concerned with logic either) {{{sits back and waits for flood ... }}}

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

Technically no. In practice yes. But that doesn't make it creationism.Intelligent design - Wikipedia The designer could be the archtypical SciFi Horror Green Monster Drooling Spacecreature ...The common usage of "creationism" in America is creation according to a literal interpretation of the bible ... which is not ID.Creationism - Wikipedia In ID the design process is ongoing -- a constant tweaking of the design if you will -- and does not confine itself to a single moment of creation. The fact that this makes it fundamentally incompatible with creationism seems to escape the attention of most proponents. And the fact that the "tweaking" must be done by supernatural action means that it is a faith ("Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.").Even if the activating agent and the whole implementation process is purely natural (such as radiation causing mutation causing change over time with selection by survival and sounding a lot like evolution ... ) the belief of a designer behind the process is based on faith. Note that there is no fundamental incompatibility between ID and evolution.See is ID properly pursued? (click) thread for more discussion on what ID (should not be and) is and (what it should be and) is not.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

actually usually means things like backwards facing retinas in humans, but forward facing for octopuses.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the problem with that is where a species branches into other species from the same set of instructions ... how can you get more than one result from the same script? (why are there still monkeys? ahahahaa)this also assumes that all extinctions were pre-plannedis the name of the designer Loki?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

... in other words the process degenerates into purely evolutionary processes and the ID concept does not add anything of value to the mix ... OR the results are not predetermined and the whole thing is an experiment to find out ...... which gets us back to purely {naturalistic \ scientific} processes and the ID concept does not add anything of value to the mix ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

works for me.I'm surprised they are not all over dark matter and energy ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The last message that was close to being on topic that I could find was by loudmouth:
http://EvC Forum: A fatal logical flaw in creationism? If you are going to show that science is wrong, it must be done on the same basis as the science used, and it must stand up to the scientific method. It must be repeatable, and all other causes of errors need to be eliminated by controlled experiments. Finally it must provide a basis for better understanding that resolves these problems.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}