Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars

Con, if nothing else, has consistently attempted to drive this debate into some sub-heading called "religious people might be liars". This is not the essence of this debate. For this reason alone have I not addressed his accusations - doing so would be detrimental to this debate. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between "creationist" and "theist" - they are more than just superficial differences, and instead chooses to keep pulling the debate into that other realm.A THEIST is a believer in the existence of a god or deity.A CREATIONIST is a believer in the existence of a god or deity who created the world, rules it, and/or created life.Hopefully, at this late juncture, CON will understand the essence of my prior statements:In order for one to be [a] creationist, and I believe I’ve made this clear, one has to AT LEAST believe the portions of their religious beliefs regarding (1) cosmological genesis and/or (2) biological genesis. These two items, point blank, full stop, PERIOD, are the issues that will make one a CREATIONIST.The essence of my statements isn't that someone is a believer, it is that they believe in a deity's influence in the creation of the universe and/or life. For some reason CON seems to keep lumping in every type of religious person into this subset - even his own arguments are filled with this erroneous math.A creationist is not just a run-of-the-mill believer as CON would have you believe. A creationist is someone who openly advocates for the idea that their deity is directly responsible for all life, all matter, and all energy, and their deity's influence in world matters, including the lives and humans, animals, and plants.Creationists are a subset of theists just like Bhuddists are a subset, and Lutherans are a subset. CON seems to have no trouble moving "up" the scale (to all theists), but when it comes time to move back towards the target group of this debate - Creationists - he suddenly pulls a "three monkeys" and pretends that we're talking about all theists; This is what he's been saying for 3 argument rounds now, and he still keeps making the same "mistake", briefly apologizes for his infraction, and then goes right back to doing it yet again.We. Are. Not. Debating. About. Theists. Or at least, I'm not. At this point, CON still has to manage a single complete argument without using "theists" to muddle the waters, but there still is hope - he has one whole argument left. -------------------------------A Creationist has two choices:(1) They can believe in creationism and discount science. In fact, this is the creationism found throughout our political and religious landscape today: Just last week it was announced that Texas now has three such people on their education board, and already they've made it clear that they have "issues" with evolution (just take a look at Kitzmiller vs. Dover to see where this is likely to be headed in the future). This is exactly why creationism is filled with lies: To make their beliefs jive with reality, they will inject religious views on top of clearly observable, easily verfiable facts such as: Tiktaalik (and about 400 other species) being a transitional fossil, animals and plants evolving over time and sharing traits and DNA, the various methods by which mutation increases genome information, bio-diversity being influenced by environmental factors (we call it: "Natural selection"), etc. Quite literally, these creationists who favor their religious views over science necessarily have to discount all of biology in order for their view to make sense to themselves. There is no part of biology that would remain untouched by this way of thinking - too many parts of biology hinge on basic concepts of phylogeny and natural processes; We couldn't even have a functioning process in place for something as banal as vaccinations which have clearly saved countless lives over the last seventy-five years.(2) The second choice a creationist has is to be a "non-practicing" creationist, i.e. to not believe their religion and favor science. I believe my opponent CON's arguments hinge on the idea of this type of creationist. Let me be clear on this point in two ways: (a) If you're one of those, you're not a creationist. At best, you might be an agnostic. (b) I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone being like this. Every single creationist I've ever met has been a type (1) -see above. However, even if such a creature, a type (2) creationist were to exist, they would still be liars. Because now, they are going around proclaiming themselves to be creationists without believing in their own religion. It would be like me, an ex-Lutheran Atheist, going around and telling everyone that I'm a bhuddist monk with extra hair?!Let me reiterate my basic thesis:One is either a creationist that substantively lies about science, history, etc in order to internalize their beliefs, or a pseudo-creationist that lies about being a creationist when they instead believe in the non-creationist views of science, history, etc.Either way, they are lying. And necessarily so.At this point, I suspect that CON will attempt to find some kind of gap between these two ideas, but I should warn you now: He's going to have to find some kind of non-creationist who is a creationist or vice versa, and clearly, this will fall squarely inside of the two choices which someone must make: Believe in their religion or believe in reality. Creationists are not outside of that logic. They, like all of us, must make that decision.This debate has been, continues to be, and will probably continue beyond this debate to be, about CREATIONISTS, and how they must either lie to themselves or lie to their peers. In either case, they must lie. They must necessarily be liars.CON will probably try to find some kind of idea regarding a theoretical group of stranded island people that decide to be some form of creationist (i.e. perhaps not even Christian creationists), who through "natural" observation decide to create a new cult. They couldn't possible be lying to themselves and others, right?Ask yourself - where does that first spark of creationism come from? Where does that first idea that some "powerful being" did ABC to DEF originate from? Does it come from factual evidence, verified statements, tested science? Does it come from superstitious ideas and completely made-up choices?"Blood Libel". This was the idea that jewish people sacrificed various Christian groups to their god. It was an idea born from nothing more than superstitions and utter ignorance about one's neighbors who had a different religious view. Today, we look at the whole idea as if we had always "known" that it was based on lies, but for a long time (blood libels go back to ancient Greek/Roman times, and are first mentioned in 1144 in the context of Christianity) they were part of our experience, right up until the mid-20th century where superstitions like "blood libel" led to the industrial extermination of jews on a scale that is nearly unfathomable. Popes issued "Bulls" based on these superstitions: "Vox in Rama" in 1233, for example, and more anti-jewish bulls like the one that forced them to wear a star of David on their clothing in 1250 (!), signed by Pope "Innocent IV". The irony is obvious.Why do I mention this? I mention this because these are religious ideas that grew from ignorance, just like today's idea that "allahu ackbar" is an expression of anti-American sentiment (it is the Muslim equivalent of someone saying "God bless"). Not the kind of ignorance that accompanies the question of "how do I accomplish ...", but the kind of ignorance that starts with "I don't know, so I'll just make up a story". This is the essence of creationism. 3,500 years ago, poor sheepherders in the Sinai didn't know something, so they just made up some stories and wrote them down. Some Australian aborigines didn't know what made the sun appear, so they made up a story about that one and painted them onto boulders. Some Chinese laborer didn't understand why plants grew, so he explained it with monkey gods and dragons. And all of them - lies. Every single one of them nothing more than something other than factual truth.Just like when blood libels were first proposed based on lies about ritual jewish cannibalism, so to are the ideas of creationism carried forward into today from those very same made up stories. Clearly they are not true. Sifting through holy texts to extract 2% of "maybe it's still true" vs. 98% of stuff we outright reject these days (should I mention forced marriage of rape victims to their rapists, for example?) is openly disingenious.Creationists, necessarily, in order to be creationists, by virtue of their own core beliefs, must believe in supernatural creation. A supernatural force which does not exist in any form, is never explained, and is favored over known naturalistic processes. The "you can't unprove it"-fallacy does not make it true! This is one of the best known logical fallacies, and if we were to follow this nonsense in any other part of our lives, we would be considered insane! Think about it: 2+2 = 4. Is there any PROOF that 2+2 = "TELEPHONE" is false? Of course not, so it must be true?! Is there any proof that UFO's didn't deposit speckles of DNA to start all life in the oceans? Of course not, so it must be true?! Is there any proof that polar bears can't talk? Of course not, so it must be true?!And yes, CON is using just such logic to keep us in the dark about creationism AND science:"It's a theory, man. You don't know where we came from. I don't know where we came from. Einstein and Hawking and Dawkins and Darwin and Lincoln and Hitler don't know where we came from. Yeah, we all have ideas, but nobody knows."Last words from S. Hawking:"Every experiment ever conducted proves the big bang and quantum theory to be true. They have never been refuted." - The Grand Design