Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars

"Nowhere can you find that belief in every word of the Bible is necessary for being a theist. "Ah, but what about CREATIONISTS? What words are necessary in their religious views in order for them to prefer the idea of a creator over naturalistic influences? You keep tapdancing around the central issue: Creationism.Creationism at it's core is a belief in a deity that created the universe and/or life. The problem with that core belief is that it has absolutely no basis in any kind of fact, and if we follow where these ideas come from, i.e. the root of who thought this stuff up, it always leads back to religion.You have agreed that creationism isn't science: "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 later down "no rationally thinking theist thinks that religious texts are scientific", followed by your own admission of "due to the simple fact that religion is not, and never has been, a science".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. Not knowing about the other stories doesn't make them any less "competitive" or any more truthful, for that matter.But beyond that, let's get to the smoking gun of your counter arguments: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.Let me reiterate your own words one more time, this time for emphasis: And they're all liars, every last one. I believe that you yourself are agreeing here that creationists are liars, but perhaps I'm misreading your argument.Here's the crux of the issue at hand: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. As soon as a religious assertion enters into the scientific arena, such as abiogenesis or big bang theory, there is certainly a clash of stories, even if it is JUST between religion and science (and we know that it is with ALL the other religions as well, including the 99% of religions that have become extinct).As I've already outlined in my previous arguments above - I used it to describe the possible truth values of competing religious beliefs - let's apply that 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.If you like you can add your little diatribe about the Greeks being wrong and the Romans, Jewish, Islam, etc. ad nauseum, but in the end I would like to point out that they are all summarized in (A).Let's sprinkle in your own assertions that all are liars.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.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. Scientists don't sign their papers with a degree in "bible studies". They sign with their career and integrity. And yes, there are numerous scientists who have broken that code and who have been excommunicated by their peers from their science. Creationists, in particular, seem to latch onto that idea - they claim that they are persecuted whenever they try to submit a paper to the Academy of Science, etc. However, in my investigations, all of them were kicked out of their position because they were academically dishonest, which is a death-blow to anyone's career in academia. The history books are littered with stories full of scientists on both sides of the debate who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.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.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? Are their credentials from academically recognized sources, did they pay for their degree through years and decades of understudy in labs? Or did they do the same thing that some slightly more educated sheepherder did 3,500 years ago and just "made stuff up"?Do a search under the word "creationist". Look up what they assert every single day. Look up what their DNA experts say compared to what real scientists are saying about their ideas, and do bother to look up their credentials. You will quickly find weaknesses in their wedge strategy, which included the idea of actually doing "creation science", which they for the past twenty years couldn't even find credentialed scientists for; Invariably their "scientists" are in the wrong discipline, time and time again, for example. Invariably, their assertions are found so lacking in valid data, good observations, and logical conclusions that they are often given to undergraduate students as examples of how not to write a dissertation.Just yesterday we find creationism in the national headlines again:http://www.nytimes.com...Is that what you think theists are?This debate is about creationists. It's about people that lie all day long to themselves, each other, and anyone else they can. These are deeply deluded people that believe in inerrancy being more important that scientific truth, even though we all know that their position is a lie.I believe you have agreed with me on the key point already.