Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars

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. 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. For some reason, and honestly it is an event I have seen all too many times in creationist debates in particular, pro-religious people have absolutely no trouble at all moving up and down the ladder on issues such as “kind”, “macro evolution”, “C14 dating”, etc. This one is new to me though: Apparently CON doesn’t know the difference between CREATIONIST and run-of-the-mill theist. I was raised a Lutheran. Does that make me a Creationist, I wonder? "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]." 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. You can’t claim that you are a creationist and try to pull these ideas from science (which I believe I’ve mentioned as well and you haven’t bothered to address in the least). Nowhere, in all of science, has a scientist looked down a microscope and found “turtles holding up the world” or “clay turning into elephants”. NOT ONCE. 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. Perhaps in your neck of the woods EVERY theist is a creationist. Unfortunately, that isn’t what MOST people identify themselves as. 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. The fact is that most theist believe in whatever portion of the bible, MINUS the belief that life came from “breath magic”. "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. This entire statement is absurd and showcases a typical creationist way of debating. On one hand you’re decrying the fact that I “misquoted you”, even though I clearly used your entire statement, and then you turn around and USE EXACTLY THAT LOGIC IN YOUR OWN REASONING JUST A COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS LATER…. 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. If you can’t find logical and consistent reasoning backed up by some kind of evidence outside of your own “inerrant” beliefs – and apparently you seem to believe that I too must believe the things you believe in order to be logical and consistent in my beliefs – I would humbly suggest just quitting now. 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... CON – this is called AD HOMIMEN attack; I believe it is against the rules of this forum. I’ll let this one slip by unreported, but let me tell you my experience in the last 2-3 years: NOT ONCE, when someone raised the idea that some creationist was laughed out of office/school/job for their religious views did it turn out to be a case of religious persecution. Every single time they were removed for academic dishonesty, and I was ALWAYS able to get the facts from nothing more than (a) a quick email to the institution asking for clarification, and/or (b) an even quicker google/bing search. If you can find me someone that successfully won a persecution case, please let’s make that our next debate. Let me warn you beforehand: My library of “creationist martyrs” is long and distinguished, and ALL OF THEM have PROVEN themselves wanting in honesty. If you want to attack my personal integrity, I will take it personally. I would not say this if I didn’t know this and I still have many of the emails including the header information which would fully prove the emails as true and genuine to anyone that knows 2 cents worth in IT. I also have lots of emails of quote-mined scientists who were pleased to be able to clarify their position in a public forum, rather than let creationists kidnap their life’s work. I am armed with THE TRUTH, not just “a truth”. 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. This is exactly where our views differ: I have yet to find any such creationists. Ever. There is no such thing, and stating this openly in a debate forum is basically like starting an expedition looking for pink elephants in Australia. From the educational panel in Texas, the candidates in our presidential debates, the daily TV evangelists, the bananamen and crockoduck scheisters, and finally our debate right here: 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. Instead, what I have seen in my circle of acquaintances, friends, family, and yes – internet “buddies”, is that every single time they get C14 dating so wrong that it makes the hair in the back of neck stand up. A subject which is so easily explained in less than 100 words that small children could handle the math. And not even two days later, there they are yet again mentioning how C14 dating makes living underwater snails appear to be thousands of years old. THIS IS NOT TRUTH. If your proposition were the case for even just a small percentage of creationists, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem is that in order to be a CREATIONIST, it requires a certain level of suspension in science and truth. And here, I MUST insist on THE TRUTH, and not some biblical version of "a truth", please. You yourself said this: “HOW CAN I KNOW”. I can know the same way that I know the earth is a sphere. I’ve never seen it myself personally, 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. None of this is based on blind faith or “belief”. It is based on observation, critical thinking, and the scientific knowledge of many people across all facets of life, in different disciplines and on different continents, with religious beliefs and cultures. When I deal with creationists in particular, 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. This debate is about this very disconnect with the truth by creationists. CREATIONISTS. How many more times are you going to flip-flop between theists and creationists, science and philosophy, knowledge and belief, and religion and science? Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars Thus far, you’ve only managed to dance around the issue. 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. 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. At no point is any astrophysicist looking for a picture of Shiva in the night’s sky, nor is any biologist looking for god-code in DNA. As soon as a creationist is asked even the simplest questions regarding phylogeny, micro-evolution, tectonic movement – even childish questions like “what’s a kind” or “where did mountains come from”, they squarely run into the issue of truth. They either accept the scientific view and pay the price of lying to their core religious beliefs, or (the more prevalent mode, I might add) make up epi-cycles of pseudo-scientific statements (science calls those LIES) in order to make their “creation science” jive with their beliefs. The knife must NECESSARILY cut both ways. That, CON, is my position. Is it clear now? Are you going to keep mentioning “theists” and lump bhuddist monks in with your ideas? Are you going to argue the truthfulness of science some more? Are we *beginning* to settle into the crux of the debate or are we going to need a few more pages of arguments?