Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars

My argument is that in order for someone to be a creationist one must necessarily be a liar. My opponent will attempt to dispel my assertion that creationists, by their very definition of BEING a creationist, are in fact liars or dishonest. Since we can delve into this particular subject twelve ways from Sunday, let's limit our debate with just this one rule, please: Let's not SELECT examples of "dishonest" people. I could easily make a list of all kinds of people that we all know are patently dishonest, and yes, we can even find a *few* in the creationist movement (wink wink), but I believe that this would only lead to some mud-slinging from both sides. So instead, let's talk about the core issues of creationism, and how they stack up to observable phenomena. You can pick any scientific issue, any part of science, logic, etc. Let me start with the core assertions of creationism: Inerrancy of the bible. Clearly, creationism is born from the belief in inerrancy of a biblical text, and anyone could easily point to all those wonderful passages that teach us morality, history, and medicine. Or could they? The fact is, that the bible contains at least 100,000 transcription errors just from the original texts into other ancient texts. By the time we get to our modern languages, this number is easily quadrupled. Not to mention that there are numerous factual errors such as "rabbits chewing cud" and entirely made up sections that were added much later (including the names of the gospels themselves), plus about 26 gospels that somehow managed to disappear between then and now. Unfortunately, even though these 26 gospels managed to disappear for various historical and political reasons (it is felt that they weren't as popular, they didn't hold enough religious value, or they had too many contradictions with other parts of the bible), we still have 4 gospels that are factually contradictory with each other. I'm sure I don't have to point out that wonderful graphic image that pops up when someone does a search for "bible contradictions" in google or bing (do turn on your images, please) - at this point it's several years old and there have been multiple additions to it already. A picture does say a thousand words, or in this case: A thousand contradictions. Furthermore, let's talk about that morality: We don't follow it. We don't murder our children to make smoke rise, we don't destroy entire villages (including their pet hamsters) just because they don't believe, we don't sell virgins into slavery, we don't make our raped daughters marry their rapists for a few extra beer-sheckels, we don't stone people that sleep around (we make them our pop icons, in fact), and we don't even punish those "evil" gay people anymore, etc. We don't follow it. We don't even follow the big ones: Turn the other cheek, don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, etc. Each and every single "biblical morality" has perfectly logical and social reasons why we don't follow them, and yes - I will readily admit that many are grey areas at best, but there are good explanations for every single one of them - even adultery if you want. We could get into each and every instance if you like, I've allowed 10,000 characters for each round, so ... be my guest. My position is clear: We don't follow biblical morality, and once more, I will even state that historically we never did in the first place. Morality has always come from our society, has always been enforced by it, imposed by it, changed by it, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Science and medicine in the bible you say? Let me be crass: The bible contains none of it. The fact that (hopefully most of us) aren't wrought with diarrhea as we sit here looking at my words has nothing to do with the bible telling us where to crap vs. where to eat. It clearly does not say a single word about this, anywhere. Such simple advice which would have saved countless lives over the eons. In fact, it goes on all kinds of diatribes on how to clean food using methods that would get any McDonalds shut down by the Health department these days. Historically we were held back for hundreds of years by "inerrant" interpretations of the bible - just look at the debacle of heliocentricity. We have known models of heliocentricity since Greek times, but it wasn't adopted until the 16th century because the poor sap who (for the umpteenth time, I might add) discovered it managed to print it and publish it just before he went to his deathbed (his name begins with a "C", and ends with a "opernicus"). We know the dark ages and middle ages as several centuries of nothing more than suppression of progress due to dogmatic religious beliefs - "inerrancy". "Inerrancy" in the bible, the pope, the Catholic church, the local inquisitor, and yes, even those "divine" kings and queens went around for a long time proclaiming how EVERYONE else was always wrong, but they could never, ever, be wrong. We still have that today: The pope still is never, ever wrong (except when he goes into retirement and then tells us that he made some mistakes earlier...?). They stopped calling him "inerrant" a few hundred years ago, but changed it to "infallible" instead, I believe. Clearly, we know better know. So clearly, between rabbits actually not being rumen animals (chewing cud?), all kinds of examples of the world not being flat, and furthermore most historical facts being wrong, geography being lopsided, morality being a non-starter, and even the titles of the chapters (gospels) being mostly made up, we can clearly state that the bible is not inerrant. Your counter arguments are clearly going to go into the usual epi-cycles of apologism, including the various methods of "people make mistakes, but God doesn't" or "separate interpretation from religion". In the end, to have any semblance of inerrancy of something, one must first have that something. If you take either tact, you are essentially admitting that there are problems with the bible - that it isn't error free. Even the earliest known versions of texts have errors in them, and we don't know what happened to the originals. Obviously, all we have are versions with errors then, and this is what creationists count on their scoreboard as "inerrant". The fact that we know they have errors even without knowing the originals is a clear indication of just how nonsensical the entire concept of biblical inerrancy really is. Folks, inerrancy is a lie. When you call a book full of errors a perfect "inerrant" book, you're lying. Since creationists base their core beliefs on inerrancy, and let's not quibble about that particular subject because I'd be glad to include the mission statements of every major creationist website which clearly state "belief in the inerrancy of the bible despite of any discipline in science, including history", they are believing a lie. The core value, the rock on which they base all their other assertions is a complete and utter lie, so wrought with bad advice and lousy examples of morality, that even the Catholic church has distanced itself from biblical inerrancy decades ago. Clinging to something full of known error isn't going to get you to the truth, no matter how much someone attempts to back-peddle. My position in this round is thus: Creationists base their core beliefs on inerrancy of the bible. The bible is not inerrant and we know this from a moral, scientific, and historical point of view. Even in theology there are clear contradictions in the bible with itself, and by the concept of "exclusive rightness" - i.e. only one side of a contradiction can be correct or they both can be false, but not both can be correct - this is a factual acknowledgement of errors in the bible (i.e. by the bible itself). Therefore, since the very foundational value of inerrancy is nonexistent, it makes every creationist who believes in creationism a liar. Without inerrancy, there is no 6,500 year old earth. There is no presuppositional, circular argument of where everything came from, as explained in the bible because it's not a true text in the first place. People that continue to follow that logic (or lack of logic, to be more precise) are necessarily lying. Lying to themselves, the school boards, their kids, neighbors, etc. Inerrancy is false; Therefore creationism is a lie, and creationism's followers are liars.