Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars

"Con...has consistently attempted to drive this debate into some sub-heading called 'religious people might be liars.'"Yeah. Exactly. You say, "Religious people are liars." I say, "Religious people can be liars." That's the purpose of this debate. What, you just want me to agree with you?"A THEIST is a believer in the existence of a god or deity."Merriam-Webster - Theism: "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world." 1 It should go without saying that I was using it in the "creator" sense. My opponent's attempt to derail my argument into nit-picky B.S. fails yet again. "In order for one to be [a] creationist..."No no no. Stop right there. We're not arguing this again. I've agreed in every single round since the issue came up. Go ahead, check it."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."Well, not really. Any religious person who is, in fact, a creationist, yes. That's fair game, right? I figured this debate was over any and all creationists, not just the ones my opponent picked. That, and he doesn't really have any specific examples of my "erroneous math", so I find it hard to take him seriously."A creationist is not just a run-of-the-mill believer as CON would have you believe."My opponent is trying to make it seem like I'm trying to derail the debate into a different territory by questioning my use of the word theist, but I've just been using Merriam-Webster's definition this entire time. Don't believe my opponent's attempt at sabotaging my argument, simply on the grounds that it makes no sense."Creationists are a subset of theists just like Bhuddists are a subset, and Lutherans are a subset."Now Pro is showing misleading information. Theists and creationists are, by definition, anyone who believes that there is a higher power who had a hand in creating the world and life as we know it. These are not different subsets, but people who all share this same general idea of an intelligent designer."We. Are. Not. Debating. About. Theists."Listen, buddy: By your definition and Merriam-Webster's, creationists and theists are the same thing. See: 1., and, of course, your definition of a creationist (mentioned throughout this debate): "Creationism at it's core is a belief in a deity that created the universe and/or life.""A Creationist has two choices..."Except that's wrong. Voters, this is known as a false dilemma fallacy, or the "either/or" fallacy. Pro fails to realize that there are more options than the ones he's presented here:"1: (C)reationists who favor their religious views over science necessarily have to discount all of biology in order for their view to make sense to themselves."Creationists can do this (they're mostly pointed out in mainstream media), but by no means have to make a choice between that and the following:"2: I've never met, seen, or heard of any (creationist) being like this... to not believe their religion and favor science."No, of course not. Frankly, that doesn't even make sense, and I never said anything even remotely similar to this. Here's the third option: There are, however, plenty of creationists who believe that their Holy Book is not a literal interpretation, and thus are not dictated by it. I even gave you a list of people who do exactly this. 2 Many of the people in this list believe in a higher power who created the world and all who inhabit it, thus making them... wait for it... creationists. See my next point..."(Con)'s going to have to find some kind of non-creationist who is a creationist or vice versa..."Or a creationist who doesn't believe in their literal text. 2 The fact that you keep ignoring this is mind-boggling. They are not breaking any rules in being a Creationist. This fits perfectly in with your definitions and criteria. Voters need look no farther than this- Pro's entire argument is shot down with this alone.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... who through "natural" observation decide to create a new cult. They couldn't possible be lying to themselves and others, right?... where does that first spark of creationism come from?... Does it come from factual evidence, verified statements, tested science?Here you go again, comparing religion and science where there are no comparisons. It doesn't have to be verified through scientific means. As far as this hypothetical tribe is concerned, this is the truth. There's no such thing as tested science to them. Yes, we know their theory of a monkey pulling the sun through the sky is false, but they don't know that. And- here's the kicker- if they say they believe that a monkey controls the sun, they are not lying. That is what they believe. In what way is what they believe false?Let's do a political example... if I asked you if you thought communism in modern America would work, you could say, "No, I don't believe that would work," or "Yes, I believe that would work." Either way, you wouldn't be wrong, because you believe it would/wouldn't work. There might be theories from political figureheads, but your opinion isn't wrong for just that reason: It's an opinion. It's a belief. It's a philosophy. And these things, by definition, can't be wrong. As a great man once said, "It's not a lie if you believe it.""(Many people came up with stories to explain things they couldn't...) And all of them - lies."Ooh, you make it sound so heinous and malevolent. "*maniacal laugh* I'll tell this to the townsfolk, and they'll all murder each other over it! Muahaha!"Man, it was just people trying to come up with theories for the things that happened. Some of these people took it literally... there were literally Gods sitting on Mt. Olympus, there's literally a monkey carrying the sun across the sky... we can prove these incorrect. Then there's ideas and beliefs that escape scientific proofs. For example... the reason we're all here on earth is to get along and love each other. ("Well, where's your scientific proof of that?") It doesn't need one. Maybe it's just an idea to get us by so we don't feel so alone. Maybe we are here for that reason. Maybe, just maybe, it doesn't really matter whatever way you think.By the way, if you actually thought that quote in parentheses, you are what's wrong with this world."Sifting through holy texts to extract 2% of "maybe it's still true" vs. 98% of stuff we outright reject these days... is openly disingenious."Unless, like I've said probably 100 times, you don't take your religious views from a Holy Text. Which is a thing: 2. Again."The 'you can't unprove it'-fallacy does not make it true!... if we were to follow this nonsense in any other part of our lives, we would be considered insane!... 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?!"Okay, are you ready for this? Following this little tirade, my opponent makes a closing statement, which he uses in an attempt to refute my entire argument:"Every experiment ever conducted proves the big bang and quantum theory to be true. They have never been refuted." - The Grand DesignLast words from my opponent:"The 'you can't unprove it'-fallacy does not make it true!... if we were to follow this nonsense in any other part of our lives, we would be considered insane!... Is there any PROOF that 2+2 = 'TELEPHONE' is false? Of course not, so it must be true?!... etc., etc."Is there any PROOF that the big bang theory is false? Of course not, so it must be true?!___Final Words:In Round 3, Pro misquoted me (either by mistake, choice, or ignorance) in an attempt to make me look foolish until I called him out on it. He attempted to justify this in Round 4, and I corrected him again.In Round 4, Pro tried saying that the fact I asked him for evidence was an ad hominem attack (i.e., a personal attack). He threatened to report me for this. I informed him that such a threat without good justification is itself an ad hominem attack, and he never brought it up again. This is unnecessarily childish.In Round 4, Pro attempted to put words in my mouth (for example, Pro said, "Are you going to argue the truthfulness of science some more?"). There are more examples in my post in Round 4, which shows how Pro tries to skew statements of completely different truths into ill-intentioned, unrelated jabs. This is another example of ad hominem, against the rules of DDO.In Round 5, Pro decried the fact that I continued to use the word "theist" in Round 4 instead of "creationist." First: By his definitions and Merriam-Webster's (1) these words mean the same exact thing. Second: I never once mentioned theists in Round 4 except to point out Pro's contradictory statements.Finally, in every single one of my posts since Round 1, I've tried pushing the idea that creationists, by my opponent's definition, do not have to follow literal interpretations of Holy Texts. Pro has ignored this major, major, point since the beginning, which is as follows: Point 3 in Round 1, my final point in Rounds 2 and 3 (esp. 3), opening statement of Round 4, and now here, referencing the formers. Please reread these to note how many times this huge point has been ignored.Voters, please vote for the side you believe made the better argument. But note how many jabs and contradictions Pro has made, and how he has been unable to refute my main argument literally this entire time. Thank you for reading.1: http://www.merriam-webster.com...2: http://en.wikipedia.org...