Thanks for your thoughtful answer. Here are my replies inserted into your own statements.

Scientific proof --------------Your second word has already diverted from my point. Note I didn’t say proof, I said truth. In the eyes of science all truth is based conditionally on the best available evidence. Current scientific truth must always be tentative since better evidence and data may subsequently lead toward more valid and complete truth. Religious truth based on faith, however, is nothing but a fixed opinion that the faith-holder will strive to protect through reference to questionable data, re–statement and word-juggling in order to cause it to become his religious truth. --------------stems from beliefs whichy were unprovable at the time. Ie the world was flat and until it was proved wrong the scientific community would have laughed in your face to say otherwise. So to say it is based on fact is so wrong. How many science facts have been proven wrong. Indeed you will find many scientists who disagree on many so called facts. Religion is also based on facts. --------------The Christian religion is based on ancient accounts written by “who-knows”, compiled by “who-knows” and given their titles based on names of so-called witnesses many decades after the happenings they describe. It’s generally conceded that 3 of the 5 were not actually witnesses. --------------The stories recounted by the apostles on the life of Jesus. No scientist doubts their authenticity ,only their content--------------Authenticity and content would seem to cancel each other out. How could content be considered valid if it is not authentic …or invalid content be considered authentic--------------Scientists say there is nothing faster than the speed of light, but i refuse to accept this as a fact. My faith in god gives me the gift to question those things believed by science to be fact--------------Turn your statement around. What’s wrong with someone who chooses to trust in scientific truth while questioning the validity of believing in religious truth? Galileo comes to mind--------------But did those scientists who made all those great discoveries not have to have faith in their own theories no matter how bizarre they were seen by others. Religion is like this. It is up to the individual to worship and believe in the way he feels is right.
It doesn't matter a hoot what others think as its his choice to make--------------I’ll bet Galileo held his fingers crossed when he was forced to recant his findings in order to escape execution by the church--------------I imagine scientists throughout the ages have acted on faith--------------The definition of faith in my Webster’s Dictionary: Belief which is not based on proof.

 Religious belief does not equate in any way with scientific evidence.
Whatever a religious believer has been told, the fact is that all religious texts were written by a human being, who may or may not have been inspired by a deity. These texts have then been interpreted and expanded upon by yet more human beings, almost always, if not actually always these people are male. Not surprisingly the interpretations etc tend to value male interests more than female.