Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars

"First of all, we don't have a series of Hindu creationists and other mythological religions (Greek, Viking, etc) pounding on the doors of our educational institutions and insisting on "equal time" for creation-science."This paragraph doesn't refute any of my points, nor does it introduce any new ones on the Pro side. Simply substitute "bible" with the words "religious text" and any particular religious group being mentioned by a more general term (e.g. "orthodox religious believers"), and we will quickly find ourselves right back with that pesky little idea of inerrancy....yeah, and my entire argument was that any religious text could be replaced and it would still make sense. I even said, "Nowhere can you find that belief in every word of the Bible is necessary for being a theist. Or in any holy book, for that matter." I fail to see how this manages to change any bit of my prior argument. It, instead, reiterates it. So, thanks again."Ultimately, no creationism comes from science. None of it comes from observable phenomena, none of it is born in a lab under a microscope, and certainly none of it has ever appeared in peer reviewed scientific journals."Yeah, and neither does any form of philosophy. None. By that logic, since philosophy isn't scientific, it is thus useless/irrational. And that's ridiculous."For example, Indian Hindu folklore has several different creation ideas, none of which are even known to the average American Baptist Creationist. Hence, it must come from some other place, other than mutual observation and deduction."So, in order for beliefs/thoughts/ideas be considered valid, it must be known by others who might not even care? There's a whole lot you and I don't know about science/religion/philosophy/fill-in-the-blank, but that doesn't make it any less valid."Please note how even our very own US constitution plus several other countries' laws agree with the idea that such concepts are not science. Witness how we now have laws in place that insist on the separation of church and state..."Here we go again... No rationally thinking theist thinks that religious texts are scientific or should be a part of our legal system. That's just common sense, and it has absolutely nothing to do with believing the source text."It is the observation of natural phenomena which are peer reviewed for accuracy and to remove bias."From here on out, any reference to science can be thrown out due to the simple fact that religion is not, and never has been, a science. That's totally irrelevant to whether one who believes in a higher power is a liar."As I have pointed out before, and by the way, this is true for more than "just the bible" - it is true of EVERY RELIGIOUS TEXT - there are inconsistencies."As I have pointed out before, and by the way, this is true for more than "just the bible" - it is true of EVERY RELIGIOUS TEXT - there are inconsistencies. Whoa, you reiterated my point again. One: I said this more than a handful of times; I acknowledged this heavily. Two: Any religious text is hardly supposed to be considered a literal one. Even if they were, it does not dismiss the idea of a higher power in the first place. "And yet, we have Creationists actively engaged in attempting to explain existence in terms of make-believe deities."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. There's just as many religious nutjobs who "know" where we came from as there are atheist nutjobs who "know" where we came from. And they're all liars, every last one. And you cannot deny that. If you did, you would be a liar."Thus, the creation stories all appear to cancel each other out by virtue of not being compatible."But as far as "where we came from," they're all more-or-less equally valid."When you have contradictory statement before you, there is only one of three possible outcomes in light of scientific truth..."Oh, come on. This hypothetical crap is baloney, and you know it. As if religion/belief is so black and white. More realistically:1. This statement might be true (Christianity)2. This statement might be true (Judaism)3. This statement might be true (Atheism)4. This statement might be true (Islam)5. This statement might be true (Buddhism)6. Ad infinitum...7. Some of these are true.8. One of these is true.9. None of these are true.10. All of these are true.11. You can't handle the truth.12. Ad infinitum.Clearly, your hypothetical situation is false. Regardless of what belief it comes from."I suppose the idea could be forwarded that an "atheist creationist" somehow wiggled into this debate."...what the Hell are you talking about? You're the only person who mentioned it, and it doesn't make any sense."We have religious zealots at our doors today pounding away at science and politics."Likewise, we have atheistic bigots throwing temper tantrums and saying, "I'm right, you're wrong! I'm right right right right right!!" Belief systems are a two-way street, buddy."(So-and-so) openly raised their hands for 'creationism'!"Well, at least they have balls. How many political atheists have the guts to say, "I don't think there's a God"? Say what you will, I'd take my chances with a guy who can stick to his guns and say, "Yeah, I believe this. I know not everyone does, but I do" as opposed to the ninny who will hardly raise a finger when asked what his beliefs are. That, and religion hardly plays into real politics. Obama's a religious man, and he's done nothing in regards to how schools treat evolution."...aren't we currently still paying for the concept of decisions based on "made up belief" vs. factual scientific data right now?"Oh, please. Every single president has been (at least to the public) a theist, and far more than half of them did great, great things for this country. Like the president who went against the Bible, depite being a deeply religious man, and said, "Slavery is inhuman" and died for that cause. Oh, and by the way, that president goes against your ideas of theists being liars."Lastly I have to take aim at your ridiculous assertions that we owe our scientific knowledge to our wonderful church..."Welp, I had a legitimate source, and dozens of scientific historians would like to disagree with you. I just think it's funny that you call out theists for ignoring science when you yourself ignore basic history. That speaks volumes."He worked on (his book) for thirty years of his life. He died the same year that it was published. Or in other words, he feared publishing it while the church could punish him: He was a catholic in a protestant region."I don't even think you checked out those nifty links I sent ya! Well, no problem; I'll just post 'em again. Here's my source for why you're wrong: http://www.iep.utm.edu... here's a list or people who say you're wrong: http://www.iep.utm.edu...Check out that the fourth paragraph. So, just because Copernicus didn't want to release an idea that he wasn't entirely finished with doesn't mean he was scared of being persecuted. I mean, he might have been. But good luck finding a similarly academic source to justify that thought."There were numerous attempts between Philolaus and Copernicus all of which failed - not just because of mathematical errors, but many times for nothing more than religious and philosophical differences... Remember that Greeks and Romans had schools which did not require religious affiliations."But Philolaus was Greek... if he had no affiliations with religion, then what was he hindered by? I understand that Philoloaus was only half (Copernicus being the other) of your point, but that still doesn't account for the contradiction of that statement."...your assertion that religious schools are responsible for our scientific gains is simply backwards.... All of this (knowledge) was destroyed when Rome fell, and nearly forgotten. It was not revived until ~800 AD under Charlemagne (aka: Charles the Great), who reopened something akin to schools, but only with the aid of the clergy..."...the clergy that was, one, able to pass on all that knowledge, as well as, two, stopping the spread of religion which is an act you yourself would praise!A perfect example of what happens to science when religion steps in would be to look at Islam. You know what, you're right too. Religion does have its drawbacks to the field of science (as well as its advantages, say, passing on all that information in my previous example). But to think that religions are even comparable today is ludacris. Science is much more advanced today, and religion can't do anything to stop it like it could "back in the day". Furthermore, both of our points and accusations are grasping at straws, because both sides are equally valid. That, and this whole "religion vs. science" thing has very, very little to do with whether or not theists are liars. I've said time and time again, the two are not exclusive as you make them out to be. In conclusion, your argument was that to be a theist, you must read a religious text, and you must follow every single word of that text, and you must believe them despite scientific evidence that completely 100% refutes them. None of this is necessarily true. Admittedly: Some people do this. And with that, I concur- you must be a liar, or just ignorant, to believe every iota of whatever religious text you follow. But very few people do that in the first place, and so the rest (a good chunk) fall into the category of "Theists who do not follow their religious text," thus proving you wrong. You are wrong. That's not an opinion thing. There's no middle ground. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. Your premise- To be a theist, you must read a religious text, follow every single word of that text, and believe them despite scientific evidence that completely 100% refutes them- is completely and inarguably wrong.