Response on Evidence

You said "1)We both need to realize that our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs."

No.  I utterly reject this.  I've changed my beliefs based on the evidence I've seen, and this has happened repeatedly.

You said "2)“Evidence” is not self-attesting or self-defining, but rather it is subject to the one defining it. So, yes, I am saying that evidential inquiry is not enough in coming to any truth.".

Do you believe the earth is flat, or do you believe the earth is round?  Please substantiate your answer without using evidence.

You said "3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false." Only partially true.  Sometimes evidence is sufficient to falsify a belief.  It is rarely sufficient to, by itself establish the truth of something.  As evidence increases over time concerning a specific belief or viewpoint, it tends to validate, but never absolutely, utterly establishes something as unfalsifiable.

You said "4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong." Maybe, maybe not.  It often happens that people reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.  My interpretation of data may be correct even when as you put it my "metaphysic" is wrong.  same can apply to both of us.

You said "5)You and I are both, therefore, men of faith. We place our faith in our interpretation of data without the certainty of knowing if our interpretations are correct."  

No.  I reject this.  You like saying this, and have tried to impose it upon me repeatedly.  Does that somehow make it right?  It wasn't right the first time you said it, and it hasn't been right any of the subsequent times you've said it.  

I believe(for lack of a better word, even though i suspect you use the word "believe" differently than I do) that using faith as a basis for a worldview is a failure at a very basic level.

If something is obviously false,  faith says "believe it anyway".  Faith is the province of christians and psychics and ufo-ologists and new-agers.  Why do many scientists spurn faith as a source of knowledge or inspiration?  Because it doesn't work.  I'm a big fan of what works.  Faith doesn't.

It seems to me that it is the "Christian" thing to tell others what they have to believe.  For me, when people try to impose their will on me like that, it ends the conversation. Was that your intent?  I don't think so, so I'll give this another chance.

Peace Out.