Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars

Dear voters, please take a note: In many of my previous rounds, I've left Pro with statements that he has, in four rounds of debate, either been unable to refute or completely ignored. One, namely, is the one with enlarged text at the bottom of the previous round. This is the main point of my debate, one that I have had since my very first post, and he has been unable to respond to it. Following it, I said, "If you refuse to address this major, major point, I will assume, perhaps rightly, that you do not read my debates at all." Since he hasn't made mention of it, I am inclined to believe that he can't or won't refute this point, or he has truly not been reading my debates at all. I've made this text enlarged as well, to draw attention to my major point again. This is Pro's last chance to refute it. I'd post it here, verbatim, but a lack of character space has made that impossible (this was written after responding to all his debate points for this round). I wish Pro luck in trying to refute it, since it uses his own logic and definitions to completely render his argument entirely useless.___ "I believe the word CREATIONIST is mentioned in the title of this debate, and I would hope that you have the fortitude to limit your responses to that group."I apoligized for using the word "theist," even though your definition of the word "Creationist" is exactly the same."I was raised a Lutheran. Does that make me a Creationist, I wonder?"I assume you are currently an atheist. Your definition of "Creationist" is, "a belief in a deity that created the universe and/or life." So, no. I don't really get where you're going with this."In order for one to be 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. If you don’t believe in the inerrancy of these, then you are NOT A CREATIONIST."Well, you kind of said this. Your definition of "Creationist" in every single round prior to this has been "a belief in a deity that created the universe and/or life." That's all. Furthermore, you used the phrases "Creationist (and Intelligent Design) advocates." Forgive me for thinking you meant the both of these interchangably. You just keep reiterating this, and I have never once said you were wrong. Cool it with the caps lock, there. Just to clarify, I take you mean, "portions of their religious beliefs" as just that. "Religious belief" does not mean "Holy Book beliefs". Thus, since a creationist does not have to read or believe a Holy Book, they can be a creationist without believing any Holy Book's literal interpretation. Correct me if I'm wrong."Perhaps in your neck of the woods EVERY theist is a creationist. Unfortunately, that isn’t what MOST people identify themselves as."Yes, by your definition of a creationist (well, the one you had been using for the first three rounds) was exactly the same as the one for theists and intelligent design advocates. You are shooting yourself in the foot every time you refute one of your former points."You seem to believe that all theist believe in whatever portions of the bible INCLUDING what I had defined being necessary to be a creationist."No, I've said time and time again that THEISTS don't have to believe in ANY portion of the Bible: "Nowhere can you find that belief in every word of the Bible is necessary for being a theist..." The fact that you're ignoring that shows how ignorant you're being."...you’re decrying the fact that I 'misquoted you'"Because you tried to make it sound like I said all scientists, and all Creationists, and everyone else are liars. I merely said that anyone who "knows" where we came from is a liar. Which is true. So you're intentionally trying to ignore I said anything else. That's "misquoting.""If you can’t find logical and consistent reasoning backed up by some kind of evidence outside of your own “inerrant” beliefs... I would humbly suggest quitting now."If you call my beliefs "inerrant", that's only because yours are. I've been using your definitions to define theist/Creationist/intelligent design, and then you say I have no "reasoning." That just shows how contradictory your state of mind is."CON – this is called AD HOMIMEN attack."How so? Really, how so? I asked for a source. You keep saying you have sources, but fail to show them. This is not an ad hominem attack. You wish. Don't threaten me when you don't have any reason for doing so, because that is an ad hominem attack. That's against the rules of this site."I have yet to find any such creationists (who don't read their Holy Book literally). Ever. There is no such thing..."Ladies and gentlemen, the following is a list of who believe that there is/was an intelligent designer and do not take whatever their Holy Book is literally: http://en.wikipedia.org... appears that my opponent has not be looking hard enough, or has been ignoring basic common sense that there are people who can believe that there is/was a high power without reading a Holy Book. This isn't an "ad hominem" attack as my opponent would like to think, but just pointing out how simple it is to do a basic Google search. Might wanna start searching for those pink elephants."I have never seen a Creationist just say “my religious view is thus” when someone mentions the evolutionary world view, mentions that the earth is 4.5+ billion years old, or that they just found another transitional fossil this past weekend. EVER."You're debating one, thus proving your entire argument a useless one."If your proposition were the case for even just a small percentage of creationists, I would agree with you wholeheartedly."I don't have any exact numbers, but I am/met with/spoken to many people who believe that a higher power created the Earth that gave us the ability to evolve. This is called "general providence." We are all still Creationists/intelligent design advocates. Right here, your entire debate is proven wrong. When can I expect the whole-hearted agreeing?I’ve never circumnavigated the planet, or flown only West to arrive back at my origin. I’ve never seen an electron, nor have I snorkled to the Titanic, seen any part of WWII or WWI, counted the ovens in Auschwitz, or visited the lunar lander. BUT I KNOW ALL OF THESE TO BE TRUE.The difference is you could do all these things. But no scientist has ever said, with 100% correctness and certainty, "The big bang did happen. I know this for a fact. 100%." And if a scientist doesn't know this, how would you? Thus, my point remains: You are a liar. "...there seems to be some strange magnetic attraction by creationists to hover toward fuzzy logic, outright lies, misquotes, and unguided pseudo-science so deep that it poisons every aspect of their ability to deal with reality."If that's true, I'm genuinely sorry you've never spoken with a creationist who will admit where science outright trumps their Holy Book. I promise, there are some out there. "How many more times are you going to flip-flop between theists and creationists... I was using your definitions for creationism for theism, so you tell me how much longer....science and philosophy...I'm merely saying religion is more like a philosophy than a science. When are you going to stop drawing comparisons?...knowledge and belief...I'm not flip-flopping; there is a very real difference between knowledge and belief. I addressed this numerous times....and religion and science?"I never compared the two; quit putting words into my mouth. "If someone calls himself a CREATIONIST, in order for their religious views to jive with what we KNOW about the universe, please DO CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG: They must believe in a deity which created the universe and/or all life on earth."Yeah. Haven't I said this already? "If there is one thing that we have absolutely no evidence of - not one shred in all of science - then it is any trace of a deity in either part of science." Because higher powers aren't a science. Haven't I said this already too? Faith isn't a science. Religion isn't a science. Thus, they don't have to run in accordance with science. There doesn't have to be a gene, or any strand of "god-code in DNA". The same way philosophies don't. Would you call philosophy an "outright lie"? No (at least I hope not). It's simply a way of thinking- more trying to find out "why" than "how". Again, contrary to your beliefs, not all creationists think that their Holy Book tells what literally happened "in the beginning.""They either accept the scientific view... or (make up lies) in order to make their 'creation science' jive with their beliefs."Except that's wrong. Creationists, again, do not have to believe in the literal interpretation of a Holy Book. "Are you going to keep mentioning “theists” and lump bhuddist monks in with your ideas?"I've stopped mentioning theists since you've explicitly stated that you no longer want me to (even though, by your definitions they mean the same thing). And I never "lumped" Buddhist monks with my ideas (unless you're talking about that multiple choice thing I made, which is still relevant). And even if I did, they are still, by your definition, all Creationists. "Are you going to argue the truthfulness of science some more?"Citation needed, you liar. Where did I ever argue the truthfulness of science? I never did. Not once, not one iota, can you find where I said anything remotely similar to "science is not truthful." I mentioned how far science can take us. Of course I did. Science hasn't given us all the answers, at least not yet. That's true. Making up something your opponent said? That's ad homenim. "Are we *beginning* to settle into the crux of the debate or are we going to need a few more pages of arguments?"Until you can refute my main point (see bottom of Round 3), this debate has had a winner since the very beginning.