I have been called all those things by creationists and, truth be told, much worse things that I will not repeat on this site out of respect for the rules and proper behavior.
You are new to these threads--welcome.
But a tip from a veteran of the crevo wars. I have found it best to simply ignore some of the posters. They are witnessing, rather than doing science. Because they did not arrive at their beliefs through logic and evidence, they will not abandon those beliefs because of logic and evidence. And they will go to great lengths to twist and distort science until it comes out they way they believe it has to.
Now, I'll follow my own advice and go read a book.
How would you describe your relationship with naturalistic explanation of the origins of the universe and life?
Would you say that you see it as certain as gravity, or more of a something that you fully believe but couldn't prove? Or somewhere between -- maybe some parts which you consider yourself to know and other parts which you hope will be proved someday?
For example, here on earth I'd gladly tell anybody that I knew that gravity was still working, and I'd be glad to demonstrate it to anybody. I consider that science. But whenever I'm about to sit down on a chair, I usually believe wholeheartedly that it will hold my weight -- but I don't know for sure until I try it. Somebody could have rigged it in the mean time since I last used it :=) But you see there is a difference between knowing and believing.
If I say "Oh, I believe that chair will hold me" I'm telling you about my belief or faith. But if I say "I tested it, and it did hold me," then I am talking about science and knowledge.
Thus I'm asking how you would describe your relationship with origins -- how much is belief and how much is knowledge?
It looks to me as if you believe quite a lot compared to what you know. But you know far more about yourself then I do, so I am genuinely interested to know how you see it, in your own words.
Thanks,
-Jesse