>You didn't read what I wrote, did you? It doesn't matter what your methods are if your assumptions are unproven. And, your description of the 'scientific method' is faulty, establishing that you have never done research and/or never reported the results of any you might have done in a peer-reviewed journal.

Yes I did read it. My comments were that faith is not needed. As you correctly said, I am not a scientist and have not published anything in a science peer-reviewed journal.

I do not dispute your comments on the cost of doing scientific research and tests these days. I do not dispute your comments to the effect that Einstein's predictions about gravity bending light not passing to be would have disproved his theory. But that is what I said and what scientific theories are all about. They must be falsifiable. If they are not, then they are faith, not science.