I know truth trumps opinion, but that doesn't mean that somebody is forced to believe the truth over a non-truth.
We both have very different views on how fundamentalist christians act. I know many fundamentalist christians and not a single one believes that humans can behave perfectly.
We may be talking about two different kinds of fundy's. The ones that show up around here say that the only reason that people are not all warm and fuzzy is because of Adam and Eve and their transgression, which made all of us sinners, and that's the only reason that people do bad things.
Creationism does not contradict the majority of science. Macro-evolution, a purely naturalistic origin and the age of the earth are the most hot debated topics and while there might be a few things here or there they aren't as large.
The only dispute between creationism and science are these areas, not science in general.
That's cute, but picking and choosing the science you like and the science you don't like based on differing opinions means that unwise choices are being made.
Creationism contradicts genetics and geology, organic and inorganic chemistry, astronomy, physics, paleontology, anatomy, anthropology, botany, zoology, climatology, crystallography, ecology, plate tectonics, linguistics, archaeology, geophysics and hydrology, among others. To pretend that the differences are minor is to take pretense way too far.
No, we do not know how life started. We're working on that. In the mean time, there is good reason to believe that it may be ubiquitous in the universe. Life may be as natural as stones and ice. Again, we don't know that yet, but our instruments will be good enough within the next decade or two to look directly at the new planets that we're finding around other stars, and if there is life there, we should be able to detect it. And if we detect life (even if it is only single celled organisms) elsewhere, then we cease to be as special as we had hoped. No matter how we started.
There is so much evidence for both a 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution it isn't funny. We don't even need fossils to prove evolution. DNA is quite adequate. So those the want to pretend our knowledge is lacking in those two areas first have to redefine voluntary ignorance as genius and solid evidence as fiction, and then pretend they didn't just do that.
We've learned too much in the last few centuries to justify depending on 2-3,000 year old tales for our knowledge. If wild-assed claims don't match reality, there is no need to consider them.
Did you forget any field of science at all? I can only assume you had specific totally not biased examples in mind as you typed each of those? Not really asking for a deep explanation for each field, but I highly doubt that those fields are as contradictory with creationism as they are just contradictory with your view on creationism.
What does life on other planets mean about humans being special? Why does the fact that it would be on another planet belittle the idea that man is special to a creator? Wouldn't any life other than humans also achieve that goal? So humans aren't special if we discover fungus on other planets? Why does it have to be on another planet, and why would the discovery of life on other planets mean that God must not love humans like he said?
I also hope you aren't just referring to natural selection and micro-evolution, as yes I acknowledge that those things are real. Is there any way to not go back and forth between separating macro evolution and micro evolution to just lumping them together as the exact same thing?
If there are any wild-ass claims, it is that existence was spawned from non-existence, life was spawned from non-life and free will was spawned from determinism. We can argue about evolution all day, but really it relies upon vagueness and interpretations, while black and white "No meeting in the middle" topics like origin are much more productive. Of course, atheists just say "We don't know yet." which is the wrong answer. Origin was also the topic of the thread, and I know I have been absent a bit but it seems this thread has gone off topic. Shall we get back onto the topic at hand?
Stop trying to turn this around as if this is an assumption made by others, when it is your assumption that is the starting point. We are just highlighting the repercussions of such an assumption. If anything can be evidence of god, then it is beyond our scope of investigation to conclude whether or not god takes constant action to keep nature in existence because god is indistinguishable from random behaviour.
Just because God keeps everything in existence doesn't mean that everything that happens ever is done by God. I think that answered the question, not really sure what you are stating honestly. I think that there is far too much credit given to the notion of randomness.
No, I'm not reflecting my 'beliefs' onto you. I think it matters, but if you aren't interested in finding out, then there's no reason you should have to. However, if you're going to engage me, or anyone else who has an active sense of curiosity, in a discussion regarding something like this, then saying, "I don't think it matters, so why bother trying to figure it out" is not going to fly. In short, if you want other people to take your opinions seriously, then you have to be willing to do the same. The problem is that you're focused on trying to show that other people's opinions are "a priori pre-suppositions", effectively saying that they're based on preexisting biases, and using that as an excuse to arbitrarily dismiss what they say without so much as considering it. As far as I can tell, that's the whole reason you started this topic, so you could pigeonhole anything you disagreed with as "not worth considering, because it already dismissed God, therefore I'm dismissing it". It's like coming in with a chip on your shoulder, then wondering why other people are reacting badly to you.
The problem isn't asking questions, it's asking loaded questions like asking me to define something I don't believe exists, or asking me to explain something that doesn't exist in my beliefs. There is obviously a difference between this world and the world of the supernatural, however I see no reason in setting arbitrary standards on what either can or cannot do. I guess I could deviate from my beliefs and theory craft, but in the end it would be pure conjecture.
An honest answer on the difference between the natural and the supernatural? I don't think there is a brick wall between the two where they can't share a single aspect of the other, so generalities will fall short. Perhaps the best answer is that our world, the natural world, is tainted and corrupted by sin, while the supernatural world is not. But then there is also satan, who is sinful but would be considered supernatural still, as he is a fallen angel. It is difficult to set a solid definition, especially when we are also considering the scientific point of view that the natural world is our observable world limited by laws and what not. While not all laws would apply to the supernatural, some would as many laws are truth by definition, although I can't really know that as a fact.
I just don't think we have the means to provide a sufficient sensible answer, especially when our knowledge of the supernatural 'world' in general is so limited. We also have to remember that while the supernatural world will make sense, it won't be making the same sense that we have come to expect from our natural world. All I can do is guess, but that inability to know falls in line with the limited knowledge of man unable to know what we are not programmed to completely understand.