Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars

I would like to point out that my opponent has 1) ignored my main points in regards to fighting his stance, and 2) taken my quotes completely and utterly out of context, either by choice or ignorance. I will address these further on.Creationism at it's core is a belief in a deity that created the universe and/or life.You don't know what a theist believes, do you? Okay, from now on, I will use "Creationist" as opposed to the word "Theist", although they have the exact definition by your word. I just found "theist" faster to type. So, again, I reiterate my point (since you never refuted it in the first place):"Nowhere can you find that belief in every word of the Bible [or any Holy text, per my opponent's stance] is necessary for being a theist[Creationist]."Which is true. My opponent has yet to prove me wrong."You have agreed that creationism isn't science: [Quote]"Yes, in the same way that philosophy isn't a science. Your point? You fail to mention one in the closely following paragraphs."You also failed to see the significance of competing religious beliefs, especially in regards to creation mythologies. Even a young child, given two different stories about the same thing, would recognize that only one of the stories can be accurate (or both could be lies), but that they can't possibly both be correct."A child given two different stories about the same thing could also tell you they might be different perspectives of the same truth. I can't tell you what a Christian or a Muslim or whatever thinks, but they do all center on a belief in God, which is the only criteria for your definition of a Creationist."Let me reiterate your own words one more time, this time for emphasis: 'And they're all liars, every last one.'" - Audience, this quote is taken out of context.You quoted the entire paragraph, and you still managed to take my words completely out of context. That is in incredibly poor taste. I'll reiterate if I didn't make it clear enough for you:"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."Again, to be clear: "They" means people who "know" where we came from. Do you "know" where we came from, Pro? If so, you are a liar, more so than any Creationist who doesn't believe in a literal translation of their Holy Book."At least in science, people don't just blindly make up fables about talking animals, unseens and unheard powerful beings, ghosts, etc. I think we can all agree that such "stories" are just that - stories. I think even you in your previous posts openly admitted this."I did openly admit that, you're right. I also said that we've advanced as a society. And just as we've advanced as a society, so too have religious people. You're under the impression that Creationists follow every single word of the Bible/whatever as literal truth. For the hundredth time, this is not true. So help me, if you try to imply this again, I'm willing to toss the debate because it's not worth the struggle. You refuse to even acknowledge this point and instead nitpick everything else. I'll go into more detail on this in my last point."...let's apply (my) same idea here, except this time comparing religion vs. science:(A) Religious ideas are correct about abiogenesis and their version of the cosmological genesis.(B) Scientific ideas are correct about abiogenesis and their version of the big bang.(C) Both versions are incorrect.Well, by your logic, not mine, that still leaves C as opposed to B or A. Frankly, I can't believe you so completely refuted your own point."Let's sprinkle in your own assertions that all are liars."Again, a quote that was taken completely out of context, so you can't use it to your own distorted meaning anymore.What is left? Nothing more than my original assertion that creationists are necessarily liars by virtue of being creationists, i.e. members of a religious group.I just showed you that, by your own logic in your misleading A, B, or C chart, scientists are necessarily liars too. I'm not saying that's right, of course (I'm not an idiot), I'm just pointing out what you said."You deeply discount the one major value that science keeps bringing to the table, which is primarily the removal of bias. In science, it does not matter if a new theory emerges from a creationist or an atheist at all. What matters is the validity of the data, the strength of the arguments, and the logical progression to a higher state of knowledge."I deeply discount it because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. This is an irrelevant monkey wrench you keep trying to weasel into our conversation. Our debate is "Are Creationists liars if they don't read the Holy Book?" If they don't, then there's no need to bring science to the discussion. For more info on this, see my last point."However, in my investigations, all of them (Creationists) were kicked out of their position because they were academically dishonest..."I'd just like to point out my opponent doesn't have a source, and so such a generalization has to be thrown out until shown otherwise. If he has none, that would make him... academically dishonest..."When people like Dawkins makes statements regarding the validity of the big bang theory, he does this with tens of thousands of scientists standing behind his statements, each with thousands of hours in experiments and theory, each with peer review and careful removal of bias in their science."Cool, good for him and those tens of thousands of scientists. When they prove the big bang actually happened, and it's no longer just a theory, I'll applaud them for their dedicated hours. Until then, we're all in the dark as to where we all come from."Is that what goes on in creationist circles? Are they peer reviewing their work, bouncing it back and forth from their labs to those of other scientists in India, Japan, and Europe?"No, 'cause we're not scientists. We don't claim to be. Just like philosophers, we occassionally group together, talk about our beliefs, try to justify them in an existential sense, then go back to our normal lives. See my last point."Do a search under the word "creationist". Look up what they assert every single day."Occassionally a Creationist will try to justify his beliefs scientifically. These are those liars you mention in your initial debate question. They try to factually back up their Holy Book, which can't be done. Again, not all, or even a whole lot of Creationists do this. See my last point."Is that what you think theists are?"This question's pretty vague, so I'll do my best: Do I think theists should try to force their beliefs? No. Should they try to skew science to look their way? No way. I think a theist/Creationist is a person who believes in a higher power. So, yeah, this person is a creationist, in the same way an atheist who wants the big bang in a science textbook saying, "That's what happened, we only have a little evidence, but that is what happened." (That sounds ridiculous, one atheist doesn't represent the whole group.) Exactly. Don't try to judge creationists based on one nut. See my last point."I believe you have agreed with me on the key point already."What? That people who try to justify their Holy Book with science and fail but try to skew results so they succeed are liars? Yeah, of course. Here's my last point. The one you've been reading about. I'm gonna make it big, because not only is it really important, but I've said it multiple times throughout these rounds and you ignore it and ignore it and ignore it like liars ignore facts. See what I did there?You are under the impression that all creationists take their Holy Book literally, and thus, do not believe scientific facts to the contrary. This is not true. By your definition (yes, you said this), "Creationism at it's core is a belief in a deity that created the universe and/or life." If your definition included, "One who thinks their Holy Book, whatever it may be, is literal" you would be right. But you didn't. A creationist/theist/one who believes in intelligent design, per your argument, and by your definition, is a person who believes in a higher power. That is all. They do not have to take their Holy Book literally, if they read one at all. Creationism isn't science, much like philosophy, and so does not try to base itself in it. You cannot make that connection, because it is an incorrect one. If you try to skew these facts, you are a liar. This is not an opinion thing. This is not up to interpretation. By your debate and your definitions, you are wrong.If you refuse to address this major, major point, I will assume, perhaps rightly, that you do not read my debates at all. I am sorry if the excessive text seems uncivil, but with the amount of times this point has been made and ignored, I am at my wit's end and feel the need to draw major attention to it. I look forward to your response.